2020 (2) TMI 624 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - M.S. Ingots - shortages and excesses in finished goods - demand on the basis of evidence including the statements of persons recorded and scrutiny of the records - HELD THAT - On the basis of detailed investigation, Revenue has issued demand notice alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods. The evidence brought on record includes statements of various persons concerned, records withdrawn from the premises of the appellants etc. The learned Commissioner has not recorded the reasons while analyzing these evidences in detail about its reliance and reliability vis- -vis in arriving at the conclusion on the allegation of clandestine removal of the goods by the respondents. It seems that he has laid more emphasis that that the order ought to be reasoned one, finding and conclusion should be arrived at on the basis of analysis of evidence on record. Hence, in the absence of detailed reasoning, conclusion in the order cannot be sustained. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the evidences afresh and record reasons on the same in arriving at any conclusion as a result of analysis of the basis of evidences vis- -vis the allegations leveled in the show cause notice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original No.09/BR-0/Th-I/2011 dated 31.01.2011 regarding clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods without payment of duty.
- Lack of detailed reasoning and scrutiny of evidence in the impugned order by the learned Commissioner.
- Request for remand to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of evidence and recording of reasons.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Original
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Original related to the manufacture and clearance of M.S. Ingots without payment of duty by the Respondents. The investigation revealed discrepancies leading to a demand notice of &8377; 67,97,677/- with interest and penalty. The Revenue contended that the proceedings initiated in the show cause notices were dropped without proper analysis of overwhelming oral and documentary evidence establishing clandestine activities.

Issue 2: Lack of Detailed Reasoning
The learned Commissioner's order lacked detailed reasoning and scrutiny of evidence regarding the allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods. The Revenue argued that despite the presence of substantial evidence, the order did not provide a thorough analysis. The absence of detailed reasoning rendered the conclusion unsustainable, as emphasized in relevant case laws such as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Bulks Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs Shukla Brothers - 2016(46) STR3(SC) and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Saheli Leasing & Industries - 2010(253) ELT 705.

Issue 3: Request for Remand
Considering the deficiencies in the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The purpose of the remand was to reevaluate the evidence, provide detailed reasoning, and arrive at a conclusion based on a thorough analysis of the evidences vis-à-vis the allegations in the show cause notice. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a reasoned order and directed that all issues remain open for reconsideration, ensuring a fair hearing for the respondents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal by remanding the case for a fresh examination of evidence and a reasoned decision-making process by the adjudicating authority, highlighting the significance of detailed analysis and reasoning in legal judgments.