2019 (2) TMI 859 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - non-submission of proper explanation for clearance of scrap without payment of duty - demand of duty along with interest and also penalty of 25% - period from April 2012 to January 2014 - Time limit of SCN - suppression of facts or not - Held that - The Commissioner (A) has observed that the appellants have not produced the register for the entire period whereas the appellant submits that they had produced ER-6 Returns, ledger of sale of scrap, statement and purchase of non-cenvatable scrap for the period from 01.04.2011 to 27.01.2013 showing receipt of scrap on which no custom duty was paid and no CENVAT credit availed. - further, the appellants have enclosed register of purchase of scrap without payment of duty for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.08.2014. The Audit has worked out the duty on the basis of Tally Accountants Software and has not properly examined all the documents produced by the appellants and the demand has been worked on the basis of surmises and conjectures - the impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the Original Authority to pass a denovo order on the basis of the various records produced by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Time-barred SCN for Central Excise duty
- Failure to maintain proper records
- Allegations of clearing scrap without payment of duty
- Commissioner's decision on duty demand and penalty
- Contradictory findings in the impugned order
- Appellant's submissions regarding documentary evidence
- Legal arguments and case laws cited by the appellant
- Defense of the impugned order by the Ld. AR
- Tribunal's analysis and decision on the matter

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an order by the Commissioner (A) regarding the time-barred Show Cause Notice (SCN) for Central Excise duty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing 'MS Billets,' was found to have not paid duty on MS scrap cleared to customers during an audit. The appellant failed to maintain proper records and cleared scrap without payment of duty. The Commissioner (A) confirmed the duty demand for a specific period and imposed penalties. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the order was unsustainable and contradictory, as the Commissioner's findings were inconsistent. The appellant submitted various documentary evidence to support their case, including returns, ledgers, and statements.

The appellant contended that the demand was based on surmises and conjectures, citing legal precedents to support their argument. The Ld. AR defended the impugned order during the proceedings. After considering both parties' submissions and the evidence, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner's conclusions and the documentary evidence produced by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the demand was worked out based on Tally Accountants Software without proper examination of all documents.

In light of these findings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to consider all documents produced by the appellant, ensure natural justice principles are followed, and confine any demand to the normal period of limitation. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of a thorough review of evidence and adherence to procedural fairness.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues raised in the appeal, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence, and the final decision to remand the matter for a fresh determination by the Original Authority.