2023 (3) TMI 573 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine Removal - demand based on certain documents recovered from the appellant and certain statements recorded by Revenue - HELD THAT - The appellants have heavily contested the fact that no cross-examination of the buyers was allowed and therefore no reliance on statements can be made. It is noted that the matter has travelled between commissioner and Tribunal number of times and on earlier occasion the directions of Tribunal were not followed. The direction of Tribunal made in para 3 of its order dated 26.11.2007 has been followed and relief has been granted by the Commissioner to that extent for the period 1999-2000. The Commissioner has clearly ignored this findings and come to a difference conclusion. While doing so he is relied on the confessional statements of buyers. There are no opportunity of cross-examination has been given and the test of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act has not been passed in respect of this statements. In absence of cross-examination no reliance can be placed on these statements. The Commissioner has quantified the amount of duty payable for the year 1999-2000 has Rs. 1, 11, 113/- in para 3.09 of the impugned order. The amount of duty for financial year 2000-01 has been confirmed in total ignoring the directions given by the Tribunal in the order dated 26.11.2007. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for determination of the duty liability for the Financial year 2000-01 in terms of para 4 of the Tribunal order dated 26.11.2007. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve clandestine removal of goods, discrepancies in analysis of documents, incorrect computation of figures, penalty imposition, and non-confirmation of interest.

Clandestine Removal of Goods:
The case involved a dispute regarding the clandestine removal of goods based on recovered documents and statements. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the analysis of documents, particularly in the calculation of sales figures for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for correct quantification of demand and consideration of all discrepancies pointed out by the appellants.

Penalty Imposition and Interest Confirmation:
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-quantify the penalty amount in line with the re-quantification of duty. The issue of interest confirmation was left for determination by the lower authority due to the remand for re-quantification. The Commissioner was instructed to adjust outstanding amounts and re-calculate duty liability based on the correct sales value, as per the Tribunal's decision.

Discrepancies in Computation:
The Commissioner's orders were repeatedly set aside by the Tribunal for not following the directions provided in previous orders. The Tribunal highlighted errors in the calculation of duty for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, emphasizing the progressive total and the need for accurate computation. The Commissioner's reliance on buyers' statements without allowing cross-examination was deemed inappropriate, and the Tribunal stressed the importance of following its directives.

Remand and Fresh Adjudication:
The matter was remanded multiple times for fresh adjudication, with the Tribunal consistently emphasizing the correct quantification of duty and penalty. The Commissioner's failure to adhere to the Tribunal's orders led to the setting aside of the impugned orders and a mandate for re-determination of duty liability for the financial year 2000-01 in accordance with the Tribunal's directives. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the need for compliance with the Tribunal's instructions.