2017 (10) TMI 957 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - non-maintenance of proper records - Held that - the directions of the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the first round of litigation are binding on the Revenue and in the remand proceedings those directions have not been followed by the authorities below - As in remand proceedings the directions of the Ld. Commissioner (A) given by the order dated 18.05.2007 has not been complied with. Therefore, the matter is remanded back again to the adjudicating authority first to comply with the directions of the Ld. Commissioner (A) vide order dated 18.05.2007 and thereafter to pass an appropriate order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of goods, interest, equivalent duty amount, and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Ahuja Battery Covers, engaged in PVC battery separator manufacturing, not registered with Central Excise Department due to SSI exemption. Search conducted based on intelligence revealed alleged clandestine clearance of goods and improper record maintenance. Duty, interest, and penalty imposed on all appellants. Initial order challenged before Ld. Commissioner (A), remanded back with specific observations. Adjudicating authority re-confirmed earlier order, upheld by Commissioner (A). Appellants appealed further.

In the first round, Ld. Commissioner (A) remanded the matter due to various discrepancies in the investigation process. Observations highlighted key aspects like production activity, modus operandi, transport of raw materials, finished goods, and quantification methods. Lack of discussion on appellants' submissions, non-speaking order, and failure to consider the totality of facts were noted. Previous directions of Ld. Commissioner (A) were binding on the Revenue, but not followed in remand proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for compliance with previous directions and a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

The Ld. Commissioner (A)'s directions, not challenged by Revenue, were crucial in the case. The failure to adhere to these directions in the remand proceedings led to the setting aside of the impugned order. The importance of a speaking order, consideration of submissions, and the need for a balanced approach in adjudication were emphasized. The case was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough examination of submissions and compliance with procedural fairness in future proceedings.