1999 (11) TMI 316 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against adjudication order by Revenue.
2. Allegation of clandestine production and removal of goods.
3. Consideration of evidence in adjudication proceedings.
4. Complaint by Revenue regarding findings of the Commissioner.
5. Introduction of fresh evidence in de novo adjudication.
6. Merits of the appeal by Revenue.
7. Deduction of sales tax while fixing assessable value.
8. Claiming deduction towards freight more than actuals.

Issue 1 - Appeal Against Adjudication Order:
The Revenue appealed against the adjudication order by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, following a remand order by the Tribunal to consider fresh evidence regarding clandestine production and removal of goods supplied to Government authorities.

Issue 2 - Allegation of Clandestine Production and Removal:
Allegations were made against the respondent for producing and clearing goods exceeding the accounted quantity. The respondent argued that the goods were supplied to Government authorities and that inspection reports covered goods from different factories. The Tribunal directed consideration of evidence produced by the respondent in the fresh order.

Issue 3 - Consideration of Evidence in Adjudication Proceedings:
The Commissioner considered evidence, including RG 1 production records from both factories, and concluded that no excess production or clearance was observed when production from both units was tallied with supplies to Government Departments. The allegations by the Department were deemed unproven.

Issue 4 - Complaint Regarding Commissioner's Findings:
The Revenue complained about the Commissioner's findings, questioning the need for corroborative evidence and introduction of fresh evidence in de novo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of totality of evidence in adjudicating clandestine production allegations.

Issue 5 - Introduction of Fresh Evidence:
The Collector allowed the introduction of RG 1 registers as evidence in compliance with the Tribunal's direction for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the Revenue should have challenged the Tribunal's order instead of blaming the Collector.

Issue 6 - Merits of the Appeal:
The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the inspection note alone could not prove the case when overall evidence showed no discrepancies in ordered, produced, and delivered quantities from both units.

Issue 7 - Deduction of Sales Tax:
The Revenue objected to the Commissioner allowing deduction of sales tax paid while fixing the assessable value. The Tribunal cited Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, which permits such deductions, and rejected the objection as the respondent was actually paying sales tax.

Issue 8 - Claiming Deduction Towards Freight:
The objection raised by the Revenue regarding the respondent claiming deduction towards freight more than actuals was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Collector considered the special requirements and contractual obligations for higher freight payments, finding the objection unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it based on the detailed analysis of each issue raised during the adjudication proceedings.