Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Roopa Dyg & Ptg Pvt Ltd on 26 June, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ****
Appeal No : E/1330/2006 (Arising out of OIA-RS/07-08/SRT-I/2006 Dated 20/01/2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-SURAT-I) Commissioner of Central Excise-SURAT-I : Appellant (s) Vs M/s Roopa Dyg & Ptg Pvt Ltd : Respondent (s) Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri G. P. Thomas, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : Shri Willingdon C., Advocate For approval and signature: Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) 1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM:
MR. H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision:26.06.2015
Order No. A/10913 / 2015 Dated 26.06.2015
Per: H.K. Thakur
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue with respect to O.I.A. RS/07-08/SRT-I/2006 Dated 20.01.2006 under which first appellate authority has reduced the demand from Rs. 17,15,332/- to Rs. 1,93,276/- against the appellant.
2. Shri G. P. Thomas, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the shortage of fabrics was determined by the officers of Central Excise in the presence of the appellant and therefore, it cannot be said that certain stock of grey fabrics was returned to the customers or that certain goods were cleared after processing to the original parties before the date of visit 24.05.2002 or after the date of visit by the officers of Central Excise. It was his case that order passed by the first appellate authority is not proper and is required to be set-aside. No separate appeal has been filed by the Revenue with respect to revision of penalty upon the Director of the Respondent.
3. Shri Willingdon C. (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that stock taking of the fabrics carried out on 24.05.2002 was not proper. Learned Advocate made the Bench go through the chart made out in Para 14 of the O.I.A. Dated 20.01.2006. It was his case that as per Panchnama a total quantity of 7, 57,648 L. Mtrs was shown to be short. He also brought to the notice of the Bench Para (iii) of the Panchnama Dated 24/25/26-5-2002, where the quantity of 7,96,698 L. Mtrs was also found in excess. Learned Advocate submitted that out of total quantity of 7,57,648 L. Mtrs found short on the date of visit, a total quantity of 2,29,030.75 L. Mtrs was clearance on payment of duty before 24.05.2002. That a quantity of 4,27,812.75 L. Mtrs was returned by the appellant to the parties from whom grey fabrics was received. That another quantity of 2,13,869 L. Mtrs was cleared on payment of duty after 24.05.2002 and a quantity of 12.250.50 L. Mtrs was returned as grey fabrics to the parties after 24.05.2002. Learned Advocate produced documentary evidence of such returned grey fabrics alongwith a statement, prepared was appellant, under which grey fabrics to the original parties was sent and from whom such grey fabrics was received.
4. As a counter to the arguments made by the advocate on behalf of the Respondent, learned AR argued that clearances of grey fabrics and payment of duty after 24.05.2002 is not relevant because these fabrics could have been received after 24.05.2002 and cleared after 24.05.2002.
5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The case revolves around mainly w.r.t the quantification of grey fabrics on the date of visit (24.05.2002) of the officers of Central Excise. It is observed from the Panchnama drawn during the visit of the Officers that the same was carried out far 3 days on 24/25/26-05-2002. Respondent has brought certain facts to the notice of the first appellate authority, explaining their view point on the issue, that quantity ascertained during the course of Panchnama was incorrect. He produces during the course of hearing before the Bench, certain letters of grey fabrics returned to Superintendent of Central Excise indicating returns of grey fabrics to the parties from where the grey fabrics was received. It is not coming out from the records, whether these details were submitted before the Adjudicating Authority or the first appellate authority. In the interest of Justice Appeal filed by the Revenue against the appellant M/s Roopa Dyg & Ptg Pvt Ltd., is required to be allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for reconciling the data submitted by the Respondent alongwith the documents. Needless to say that Adjudicating Authority will grant personal hearing to the appellant to explain their case during remand proceedings. As the period involved in this appeal is May, 2002, therefore, it is directed that the remand proceedings may be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. In view of the above observations, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority by setting aside O.I.A. 20.01.2006. All issues are kept open for adjudicating authority to deliberate upon.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) govind 3