2019 (7) TMI 1461 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of erroneously grant of Rebate claim - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - reliability on statements - procedure prescribed under Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 not followed - HELD THAT - Ld. DR has no objection to the matter being remanded to the original authority in view of the mandatory requirement of following the procedure under section 9D of CEA, 1944. This is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to enable them to follow the procedure under section 9D with respect to the statements and also consider any other additional evidence that may be produced by the appellants. Therefore, without passing any remarks on the merits of the case and leaving all issues open, we remand the matter to the original authority for adjudication after following the procedure prescribed under section 9D and following the principles of natural justice. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Allegations of forged documents and incorrect rebate sanction
- Adjudication process following Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944
- Acquittal by CBI Court and evidentiary value of documents
- Remand of the matter for re-adjudication

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD dealt with three appeals concerning the rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by M/s Neptune Synthetics Limited. The company had exported products and claimed rebate, which was later questioned through a show cause notice citing various grounds, including issues with certificates, invoices, and non-observance of procedures. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and personal penalties on individuals associated with the company.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the investigation did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, as highlighted in judgments by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. They also pointed out that the CBI Court had acquitted both the appellants and Central Excise Officers in a related case, raising concerns about the evidentiary value of the documents and statements relied upon. The counsel requested a remand to the original authority for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need to consider the acquittal and follow Section 9D for statements.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments and agreed that a remand was necessary for the original authority to adhere to the procedure under Section 9D, ensuring fairness and natural justice. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural aspect, allowing the appeals by way of remand for further adjudication. The decision highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures and principles of natural justice in such matters, emphasizing the need for a thorough and fair adjudication process.