2015 (10) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - Clearance of goods without payment of duty - officers seized the various records and documents including a diary written by Shri Surjeet Singh - Held that - After the search of the factory premises of the said Company, the Central Excise Officers issued Summons to examine the eight merchant manufacturers, who had refused to appear before the Officers. The Learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Department initiated criminal proceedings against the eight merchant manufacturers for refusal of the appearance. However, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had not given any detail finding on the outcome of cross-examination. - Adjudicating Authority should have examined to contents of the diary as claimed by the appellants and to pass a reasoned order after considering the submission of the appellants. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Central Excise duty evasion by a company engaged in processing ManMade Fabrics.
2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice issued to the company and its director.
3. Adjudicating authority's failure to provide detailed findings on cross-examination and examination of merchant manufacturers.
4. Appeal against the penalty imposed on the company and its director.
5. Decision on remanding the matters to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.

Central Excise Duty Evasion:
The case involved M/s. Sahiba Fabrics Pvt Ltd processing ManMade Fabrics without paying Central Excise duty. Statements by company officials confirmed the clearance of goods without duty payment. The company's director admitted the wrongdoing and deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding duty, interest, and penalties.

Validity of Show Cause Notice:
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 80,13,333.00 along with interest and imposed penalties. The authority also appropriated the earlier deposited amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 16 lakhs was imposed on the company's director and merchant manufacturers. The main contention raised was the lack of detailed findings on cross-examination and examination of merchant manufacturers by the authority.

Adjudicating Authority's Failure:
The Learned Advocate argued that although cross-examination was allowed, no findings were provided. The diary containing details of the goods' processing stages was not thoroughly examined, leading to a duplication of duty demand. The authority failed to examine the merchant manufacturers, which was contested by the Advocate. The Tribunal noted the lack of detailed findings by the authority and emphasized the need for a thorough examination of submissions and diary contents for a reasoned decision.

Appeal Against Penalties:
The Tribunal found the Advocate's submission regarding the examination of merchant manufacturers unconvincing. While criminal proceedings were initiated against the manufacturers, the authority did not provide detailed findings on the cross-examination outcomes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the diary contents and merchant manufacturers' submissions for a just decision.

Remand Decision:
Considering the above discussions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The authority was directed to decide promptly, given the substantial duty already deposited by the company. The Advocate agreed to cooperate during the fresh adjudication, and all appeals were allowed by way of remand.

This detailed analysis covers the central issues of Central Excise duty evasion, validity of the Show Cause Notice, failures of the Adjudicating Authority, the appeal against penalties, and the decision to remand the matters for fresh consideration.

← Previous Next →