2018 (11) TMI 284 - AT - Central Excise

SSI benefit - fictitious firm - appellant has cleared the final products to two main customers by issuing documents in the name of three fictitious firms - demand of Central Excise duty on the basis of ledger obtained from the main customer - Held that - It is evident that there are errors evident in the work sheets in which the demand has been quantified. The benefit of SSI Notification has also been un-justifiably denied. In these circumstances, the present case is required to be remanded once again to the adjudicating authority for requantification of the demand - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2008; Allegation of non-payment of Central Excise duty; Investigation findings; Remand for denovo adjudication; Errors in calculation; Denial of SSI exemption benefit; Violation of principles of natural justice; Cross-examination request; Death of Director; Impugned order challenged.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing HDPE Containers, faced allegations of non-payment of Central Excise duty following investigations. The Department found clearances made to fictitious firms, leading to a show-cause notice in 2003. The initial Order-in-Original in 2003 demanded duty, penalties, and confiscation. Upon appeal, the Tribunal remanded the case for denovo adjudication due to procedural violations, emphasizing natural justice principles.

In the subsequent Order-in-Original of 2008, the Commissioner confirmed a higher duty demand, penalties, and upheld penalties on directors. The appellant challenged this order, citing errors in calculation, denial of SSI exemption benefit, and lack of cross-examination opportunities. The Revenue defended the order based on ledger evidence and attempted cross-examination.

During the appeal, the appellant admitted clearances to fictitious firms but contested the demand calculation discrepancies and denial of SSI benefit. The Revenue acknowledged errors in entries and double accounting. The Tribunal noted unjustifiable denial of SSI benefit and errors in quantification, remanding the case for re-quantification.

The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider combined turnover, discrepancies, and the death of a director, adjusting penalties proportionately. The authority was instructed to finalize the matter promptly, emphasizing no unnecessary adjournments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case for re-quantification, considering turnover, discrepancies, and penalties, with a directive for prompt resolution within three months.