Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

C.1. The Appellant submits that the adjudicating authority has totally misunderstood the scope of the remand and has proceeded on an incorrect basis.

C.2. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40339-40340/2018 dated 06.02.2018 had remanded the matter to the Commissioner on the basis of documents produced by appellant to prove that the Appellant has procured fly ash from sources other than MTPS. The Appellant had produced 9 box sets of documentation to prove that fly ash was procured from brick-manufacturing companies, cement companies other than MTPS. It is clear from the Order of the Tribunal that the sources of procurement of fly ash by the suppliers of the Appellant was not in question before the Tribunal. C.3. The impugned order has added words to the remand direction of the Tribunal to extend the scope of the remand. It is well settled that an Order which goes beyond the remand direction merits to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:

10.5 From the data furnished by MTPS, it was noticed that if the excess quantity of fly ash recorded by appellant which is shown as Excise Appeal No. 40388 of 2021 Excise Appeal No.40390 of 2021 received in their records and returns is reduced, for the year 2004- 05 the actual fly ash content percentage in the finished product would fall below 25%. From the data received from MTPS as well as documents recovered from M/s.Natesan Engineers and contractors, co-noticee and the appellant herein, it was noted that the fly ash lifted from MTPS was correctly accounted in their records. The quantity of fly ash lifted from MTPS being very less than the quantity shown in the records/ER-I returns and Form-C and D filed by the appellant M/s.Vishaka Industries, it is clear that they have not used 25% of fly ash in the final product, as claimed by them. The appellant is not eligible for the exemption as per notification 6/2002 dt.1.3.2002. The duty demand confirmed is thus legal and proper. The Learned AR argued that to claim exemption, the appellants have created bogus/excess fly ash receipts and reflected such receipts in their accounts. M/s.Natesan Engineers and Contractors have connived in raising such bogus consignment notes, receipts and therefore, the penalties imposed are also legal and proper. 10.6 It is submitted that after remand by the Tribunal, the appellant had furnished humungous documents to establish that they had procured the fly ash not only directly from MTPS but also from Cement companies, Brick manufacturers, etc. These documents cannot be relied as they are produced after much delay. The adjudicating authority had passed the earlier OIO dated 6.5.2009. Against this order, the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal, as Appeal No.E/423 and E/422 of 2009. Later in 2017, the Excise Appeal No. 40388 of 2021 Excise Appeal No.40390 of 2021 appellant filed Miscellaneous Application No.41821/2017 before the Tribunal, to receive additional documents. These documents were not furnished at the time of earlier adjudication. The Tribunal ought not to have remanded the matter, when the documents are produced after such a long lapse of time.

10.7 In the denovo adjudication, the adjudicating authority has considered the contention of the appellant that in addition to the quantity received from M/s.Natesan Engineers and Contractors from MTPS, the appellants also procured through Natesan Engineers and Contractors, sourced from the quantity allotted to small units; brick manufacturers, Cement companies, etc. In para 16.01, the adjudicating authority has examined the entire set of documents submitted by the assessee. However, the appellant was not able to establish their contentions that fly ash was procured from other sources also. Further, the documents having produced after much delay cannot be accepted, as their veracity is not established. The Learned AR submitted that the order passed being legal and proper, the appeals may be dismissed.

12.9.6 For the period 2004-2005, the appellant has contended to have procured from M/s.Chettinad Cements Corporation Ltd. M/s.MSM Transports, ACC RMC, Sakthiguhan Construction Products, and SIAR Traders.

12.9.7 The appellant contends to have procured 2957.85 MTs of fly ash from Chettinad Cements. It is observed by the adjudicating authority that the appellant has furnished necessary documents for such procurement. However, again, there is no finding recorded as to whether these documents are accepted or not. The adjudicating authority is silent as to the procurement on the basis of these documents. The duty demand has been confirmed by disregarding these documents, without recording any reason. 12.9.8 In the case of procurement of fly ash from M/s.MSM Transport the appellant had explained that MSM had issued letter to NEC dt. 27.11.2004 wherein MSM proposed to supply fly ash to NEC Excise Appeal No. 40388 of 2021 Excise Appeal No.40390 of 2021 and further supply to be made to appellant. It was also stated that this supply is made from the allotment made to seven brick companies which was indicated in the letter. From the documents, it is seen that the appellant had procured 2480 MTs of fly ash on various dates during February 2005. The appellant had furnished all documents evidencing the procurement through NEC from M/s.MSM Transport. So also, they produced the allotment orders of all the seven brick companies. The adjudicating authority though noted all these evidences produced by appellant has again opted to be silent as to why these procurements are to be considered as not bogus. The duty demand has been confirmed disregarding these documents and supply of 2480 MTs of fly ash.