2018 (10) TMI 1471 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - case of appellant is that Original Authority had exceeded jurisdiction in confirming the demand in the de novo proceedings, beyond the scope of the SCN as well as the scope of remand Order by adopting a strange reason alleging insertions or corrections - Held that - Since the SCN points out that only the photocopy of certain invoices were produced without any reference to corrections or insertions, the same having not put across for rebuttal could be made a ground to raise demand - the adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice as well as the Order of remand - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand on account of alleged clearance of goods without payment of tax, jurisdiction of the Original Authority in confirming the demand, consideration of additional evidences, non-submission of certain documents/invoices, sustainability of impugned Order.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal sustaining the demand for alleged clearance of goods without tax payment, interest, and penalty. The Advocate for the Appellant argued that the Original Authority exceeded jurisdiction by confirming the demand in de novo proceedings beyond the Show Cause Notice and remand Order. The Advocate highlighted that additional evidences, including RG-23 return, monthly ER-1 return, and RG-1 Register, were considered. The Advocate contended that the Revenue's allegation of non-submission of certain documents/invoices was baseless as these were included in the monthly ER-1 return. The Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice only mentioned the non-production of photocopies of invoices without any reference to corrections or insertions. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the demand beyond the scope of the notice and remand order. Consequently, the impugned Order was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal against the duty demand was allowed with consequential benefits.

The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and examined the documents on record. It was observed that the Original Authority had confirmed the demand based on the non-production of certain invoices, which was not adequately rebutted. The Tribunal emphasized that the Show Cause Notice did not raise any issues regarding corrections or insertions in the invoices. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the demand based solely on the non-production of photocopies of invoices was unjustified and beyond the scope of the notice and remand Order. As a result, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeal against the duty demand was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the demand on the grounds of non-production of certain invoices was not sustainable as it exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice and the Order of remand. The Tribunal held that the impugned Order was erroneous in upholding the demand and, therefore, set it aside. Consequently, the appeal against the duty demand was allowed, providing relief to the Appellant.