TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount 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. - EXCISE Appeal No. 10609 of 2021-DB - FINAL ORDER NO. A/10429/2023 - Dated:- 14-3-2023 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Amal Dave, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Prabhat K Rameshwaram, Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER This is the 4th round of litigating before Tribunal. 2. A case was booked against appellant for clandestine removal of goods based on certain documents recovered from the appellant and certain statements recorded by Revenue. Tribunal in its order dated 26.11.2007 noticed certain discrepancies in analysis of documents in the order in original. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed 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. The tribunal in its second order dated 24.01.2019 made following observations: 6. We have gone through the rival submissions we find that Tribunal vide Order No. A/2966 to 2968/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 26.11.2007, in respect of issue relating to the value of clandestine clearances as per computerized sales record, observed as follows. 2. It is seen that the period involved in the present appeal is 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The demand is based upon the sale register retrieved from the computer, which does not stand reflected in statutory records. By drawing our attention to the said sale register for the year 1999- 2000, sh. Dave submits that the total clearances shown in the said register was to the tune of Rs. 72,22,250/-.The said sale was further shown in the computer printout as bifurcated in respect of two varieties i.e. OPEAK and TR. Transportation charges were separately shown and 12% tax was also shown separately. He submits that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r No. A/10175-10176/2019 dated 24.01.2019 has set aside the OIO No.40/COMMR./2009 dated 31.08.2009 passed by Commissioner and remanded to pass a fresh adjudication in terms of the Tribunal s earlier order dated 26.11.2007 by which the matter was remanded. 03.08 From the earlier order dated 26.11.2007 of Hon ble Tribunal at Para 2, I have noted that the said para was pertaining to the duplication in calculation of duty for the year 1999-2000 and further, at Para 3, discrepancies while arriving at sale figures for the year 2000-2001 as against the submissions made before by M/s. GCPL. As against the first submission the Hon ble Tribunal has observed, a text of which is reproduced as under: We have seen the relevant page for the said entry. The total sale shown as Rs. 72,22,250/- is the sum total of the sale of two varieties as also tax and transportation. As such, we agree with the ld. Advocate that there is no justification by doubling the said sale figures. For further submission, the Hon ble Tribunal has observed, a text of which is reproduced as under ..without going into the details of each and every month, as we feel convinced that the clandestine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the demand for the period 2000-2001: 4 . Similarly, we have been shown discrepancies while arriving at a sale figure for the year 2000-2001. Apart from showing the actual sale value for a particular month, the appellants have also shown the outstanding recovery amount of sales made in the preceding months and the amount recovered in that particular month. The Commissioner has made sum total of all the figures and have arrived at a clearance figure, which is much higher that the actual clearance figure. This become clear form the fact that amount shown as outstanding recovery amount in one month stands carried forward in the next month are subtracted. As such, it is the progressive total, which has to be taken into consideration. Without going into the details of each and every month, as we feel convinced that the clandestine removal figures have not been computed correctly , we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner to re-quantify the demand after taking into note of the above discrepancies pointed out by the appellants. Needless to say that the appellants would be given an opportunity to put forth their case before the Adjudicating Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
