2018 (3) TMI 326 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has given specific findings in his order dated 31-7-2003 whereby the adjudicating authority was directed to re-quantify demand. This order was upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated 7-9-2011 - Since first order of the Commissioner (appeals) itself has attained finality, no grievances can be made by the appellant in the second round. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty evasion and penalty imposition for removal of excisable goods without payment.
2. Adjudication process, remand by Commissioner (Appeals), and subsequent appeal dismissal.
3. Re-quantification of demand, reduction of penalty, and adherence to principles of natural justice.
4. Claim for benefit under specific notifications and deductions under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act.
5. Value determination of goods, consultant's contentions, and stay on proceedings.
6. Legality and sustainability of the impugned order-in-original.

Analysis:

1. The case involves the appellant, a fabric processor, who removed excisable goods without paying duty. A show cause notice was issued, resulting in the confirmation of duty, interest, and penalties by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for re-quantification, leading to a reduced demand. The subsequent denovo adjudication upheld the demand reduction but maintained the penalty. The appellant challenged this before the Commissioner (Appeals) again, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant failed to appear during the proceedings, while the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted the previous directions for re-quantification and reduction of demand, which had attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denovo adjudication order, emphasizing the lack of violation of natural justice principles and dismissing the appellant's claims for specific benefits and deductions.

3. The Commissioner's order highlighted that the appellant did not provide evidence for their claims during previous proceedings, treating them as an afterthought. The value determination of goods was found to be appropriate based on available records, and the consultant's contention regarding a stay on proceedings was not substantiated with evidence. The Circular clarifying the scope of stay orders further supported the sustainability of the impugned order.

4. The detailed examination by the Commissioner considered all aspects of the case and rejected the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal found no flaws in the impugned order and upheld it, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The judgment was pronounced in court, affirming the legality and sustainability of the order-in-original.