Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce & St, Indore vs M/S Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd on 18 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV DATE OF HEARING : 18/01/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 18/01/2016. Excise Appeal No. 50710 and 50748 of 2014 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. IND/CEX/000/APP/142 &143/2013 dated 24/10/2013 passed by The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, 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? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? CCE & ST, Indore Appellant Versus M/s Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. ] Respondents
Shri Jyoti Dubey, Director ] Appearance Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
Shri A. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 50075-50076/2016 Dated : 18/01/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
These appeals are filed by Revenue against order dated 24/10/2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Indore. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P.P. Woven Sacks and Fabrics liable to Central Excise duty. Certain verifications were done by the officers in the premises of the respondent in January 2010. Subsequently proceedings were initiated against them by issue of show cause notice dated 27th July, 2010. The case was adjudicated by the Original Authority vide order dated 28/1/2013. The Original Authority confiscated finished goods valued at Rs. 47,97,000/- and raw materials valued at Rs. 12,15,375/- and allowed their redemption on payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively. He also imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- on the company and the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the Director of the company. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order observed that the original order and the investigation appear to be flawed. He observed that the Department did not provide the data/records in the computer hard disk which was seized and also did not provide the various non-relied upon documents to the respondent/assessee. The impugned order also concluded that there were various serious lapses in the investigation and the matter requires to be re-adjudicated after following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, she remanded the matter to the Original Authority. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue filed these appeals on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no longer the power of remand. She should have examined the material facts and passed an order on merit after due consideration.
2. The learned AR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the case after amendment of Section 35A (3) of Central Excise Act, 1944. She also submitted that since the case involves data or record in hard disk and various non-relied upon documents re-verification of the same after providing the copies to the respondent can be done.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that they have not been given a fair chance to represent their case before the Original Authority. The computer hard disk seized during search operation contained various details. Similarly, the various non-relied upon documents are also required to prepare their defence against the charge of improper accounting of finished goods and raw material. They were handicapped in their defence in the absence any of these documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly pointed out various lacunae in the investigation and the Original Authority not following the principles of natural justice.
4. Having heard both the sides, it is found a fit case for the proper re-adjudication by the Original Authority as the case mainly deals with the non-accountal of certain quantities of finished goods and raw material which the respondents are strongly contesting. The Original Authority should return non-relied upon documents and also provide soft or hard copies of the contents in hard disk/computer seized and examined by the Department. Fair opportunity may be given to the respondent to defend their case in writing and in person. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of with the direction to the Original Authority to decide the case afresh, preferably within three months.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2