2014 (5) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Under-valuation - clandestine removal of goods - Quantification of duty - Held that - In view of the fact that the matter involves huge stakes of revenue for both sides and even if we take a view on other issues, where these documents and details may not be relevant, the matter in any case would have to be remanded in respect of issues where these documents would be relevant, we consider that it would be appropriate to make an open remand at this stage itself even though this is being done with great reluctance. - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Allegations of evasion of Customs and Central Excise duties by a manufacturer.
2. Merger of two registered units into a single registration.
3. Seizure of documents during searches by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
4. Duty demands on various activities of the appellants.
5. Consideration of written submissions and details.
6. Unavailability of certain annexures and documents during investigation.
7. Remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority.

Issue 1: Allegations of evasion of Customs and Central Excise duties
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received information that the manufacturer was evading duties through under-valuation of goods, diversion of raw materials, and improper accounting practices. Searches were conducted at various premises, leading to the seizure of documents and data. Investigations revealed discrepancies in the removal and accounting of goods, resulting in duty demands on various activities undertaken by the manufacturer.

Issue 2: Merger of two registered units
The manufacturer had two registered units that were merged into a single registration with effect from a specified date. This merger was permitted by the Large Taxpayer Unit, and the units operated with common bonded warehouses and inventory before the merger.

Issue 3: Seizure of documents during searches
During the searches conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, documents, data in various forms, and laptops were seized. The seized materials were related to the purchase of raw materials and sale of goods by the manufacturer, as detailed in the show cause notice and statement of facts.

Issue 4: Duty demands on various activities
Duty demands were raised on different grounds, such as undervaluation of goods, clandestine removal, and other irregularities. The demands were based on specific periods and activities, with corresponding amounts specified in the order-in-original.

Issue 5: Consideration of written submissions and details
Both sides made written submissions, and the details presented during the hearing were carefully considered. After thorough examination, it was decided that a remand was necessary based on submissions made by the appellants regarding the unavailability of certain annexures and documents during the investigation.

Issue 6: Unavailability of certain annexures and documents
Certain annexures and documents crucial to the case were not made available during the investigation proceedings. The appellants highlighted the absence of these materials, which were essential for quantification of duty, reconciliation, and analysis of allegations. Due to the significance of these missing documents, a remand was deemed necessary.

Issue 7: Remand of the matter
Considering the importance of the missing annexures and documents, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority. The remand was made with the request to consider all aspects afresh, provide a reasonable opportunity for detailed case presentation, and ensure that all submissions are thoroughly addressed to reach a well-reasoned decision in the future hearing.