Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 121 - AT - Central ExciseScope of the adjudication proceeding where the case has been remanded back by the tribunal - Interpretation of a document recovered by revenue during investigation - demand based on sales register retrieved from the computer which does not stands reflected in the statutory records of the sales for the year 1999-2000 - HELD THAT - After the first remand order, the matter was again adjudicated by commissioner vide order no 40/COMMR./2009 dated 31.08.2009. In the said order the commissioner citing largely from the OIO 13/COMMR/2003 dated 11.07.2003 (which was earlier set aside by tribunal order dated 26.11.2007 cited above) came to the conclusion that the demand was correctly made and reconfirmed the same. The matter was again agitated by the appellant before tribunal. After examining the observations made in the earlier order of tribunal dated 26.11.2007, the order of the commissioner was set aside and matter was remanded again. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for the adjudication by Commissioner once more and vide the order dated 16.04.2020 impugned in this proceedings the demand was once again confirmed ignoring the observation made by the tribunal twice over - Thereafter the impugned order has once again confirmed the entire demand without following the direction in the first tribunal order dated 26.11.2007 and also the second tribunal order dated 24.01.2019. The fact of duplication of demand has been specifically examined in both the tribunal s order and the finding of both the orders are very clear and precise leaving no scope for interpretation. Even if the Adjudicating Authority had any doubts regarding what was stated in the first tribunal order dated 26.11.2007 the same was clarified in the second tribunal order dated 24.01.2019. In case the commissioner was aggrieved by the observation of the second tribunal order dated 24.01.2019 the right course of action was to take the matter to the higher forum and not to ignore the same. The impugned order passed directly in violation of two tribunal s orders is bad in law and is therefore set aside. The matter once again remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication following the directions made in earlier order of tribunal dated 26.11.2007 and repeated in its order dated 24.01.2019 - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Interpretation of document recovered during investigation, duplication of demand, re-quantification of duty, penalty imposition, interest calculation, adherence to tribunal orders. Interpretation of Document Recovered During Investigation: The appeal involves the interpretation of a document recovered by revenue during an investigation, specifically relating to sales registers retrieved from a computer that did not match the statutory records for the year 1999-2000. The tribunal observed discrepancies in the calculation of sales figures for different varieties and transportation charges, leading to an erroneous total sale amount. The commissioner's decision to double the sale figures was deemed unjustified, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification of the demand, emphasizing the need for correct computation of clandestine removal figures. Duplication of Demand: The issue of duplication of demand was repeatedly addressed in tribunal orders, highlighting errors in calculating duty for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Despite clear directives from the tribunal to re-quantify the demand based on identified discrepancies, the commissioner reconfirmed the demand multiple times, disregarding the tribunal's observations. The tribunal emphasized that the commissioner had no jurisdiction to question the tribunal's decision on the duplication of demand, making it final and binding. Re-Quantification of Duty and Penalty Imposition: The tribunal directed the re-quantification of duty and penalty amounts in line with the correct computation of sales values based on computerized registers. The matter of interest calculation was to be decided afresh by the lower authority, while penalties imposed on certain entities were to be reexamined. The tribunal's orders stressed the importance of adhering to the correct calculation of duty and penalties as per the tribunal's directives. Adherence to Tribunal Orders and Legal Consequences: The commissioner's failure to follow the tribunal's orders, despite clear and precise findings on the duplication of demand, was deemed a violation of the law. The tribunal reiterated that the commissioner should have challenged the tribunal's decisions if aggrieved, rather than ignoring them. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded once again to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh adjudication following the tribunal's directions from previous orders. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of adhering to tribunal directives and ensuring accurate computation of duty and penalties based on the correct interpretation of documents and sales records.
|