2019 (2) TMI 1354 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - duplicacy in demand - allegation based on computerized sales register - Held that - Tribunal vide Order No. A/2966 to 2968/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 26.11.2007, in respect of issue relating to the value of clandestine clearances as per computerized sales record has held that - the issue regarding the duplication of demand has been finalized by Tribunal and Commissioner has no jurisdiction to question the said decision. If Revenue had any doubt regarding the aforesaid decision they should challenged the said decision of the Tribunal. Having failed to challenge the said decision it become final and binding on Commissioner. Thus, the impugned order is being in violation of Tribunal order is set aside. Non confirmation of the interest - Held that - Since, impugned order has been set aside for the re-quantification, the matter regarding interest will be decided a fresh by the lower authority. Adjustment of outstanding - Held that - The same requires reexamination as the total clearances/ sales have to be re-quantified and the duty liability re-calculated after re-quantification of the sales value arrived at on the basis of computerized sales register. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh adjudication order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner in remand proceedings regarding alleged clandestine clearances during specific years.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Ceramic Glaze Mixture, challenged the demand raised for alleged clandestine clearances during 1999-2000 & 2000-2001. The Tribunal previously accepted the argument that there was a discrepancy in the demand calculation based on computerized sales records. The appellant argued that the Commissioner ignored the Tribunal's findings and did not follow the remand order. The Commissioner relied on the ledger showing sales of 1.55 crore, claiming it matched the alleged clandestine clearances. However, the ledger was unrelated to clandestine clearances. The Revenue had not recovered any bill to support their assertions. The Tribunal reiterated its previous decision that the demand was erroneously calculated, and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to question it without challenging the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication in line with the Tribunal's previous decision. The issue of interest and outstanding amounts was to be reexamined and recalculated based on the re-quantified sales value from the computerized sales register. The impugned order was deemed to be in violation of the Tribunal's decision and was set aside for re-quantification and reexamination of duty liability. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing adherence to the Tribunal's previous ruling.