2018 (2) TMI 705 - AT - Central Excise

Matter was remanded for the purpose of requantification - Even today in the revised list none is present for the appellant nor any adjournment application is available on record. It shows that the appellant has no material to support its claim. It supports the finding of the adjudicating authority. When it is so there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded in the impugned order which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Lack of representation by the Appellant
- Re-quantification of duty based on Tribunal's direction
- Failure to provide necessary information for re-quantification
- Appellant's inability to support submissions
- Dismissal of the appeal

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI involved several key issues. Firstly, it was noted that there was no representation on behalf of the Appellant during the proceedings. Despite this, the Tribunal proceeded with the case. The main issue at hand was the re-quantification of duty as directed by the Tribunal in a previous order. The Tribunal had instructed that the demand should be reworked by obtaining the wholesale price of the material and allowing permissible deductions as specified in a CBEC Circular.

In response to the Tribunal's direction, the adjudicating authority passed an order mentioning that the necessary information regarding wholesale price and permissible deductions was not provided by the Appellant despite several opportunities for the same. This lack of information hindered the re-quantification process, making it impossible to comply with the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant failed to provide material to support its submissions in line with the Tribunal's decision.

During the current proceedings, it was observed that the Appellant continued to lack representation, indicating a further inability to support its claim. The Tribunal concluded that since the Appellant had no material to substantiate its position and failed to comply with the Tribunal's directives, there was no justification to overturn the findings of the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing necessary information and complying with tribunal orders in legal proceedings to support one's case effectively.