2016 (10) TMI 1172 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns demand due to lack of evidence, unfair hearing, and violation of natural justice.

M/s Tin Manufacturing Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

M/s Tin Manufacturing Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the demand of Rs. 5,46,47,223/- based on FORM A.2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.3. Adequacy of evidence supporting the demand.4. Relevance of findings by DGFT and Income Tax Authorities.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the demand of Rs. 5,46,47,223/- based on FORM A:The demand of Rs. 5,46,47,223/- was primarily based on the details mentioned in FORM A, which was alleged to have been recovered during the investigation by DGCEI. However, the appellant contested that the figures in FORM A were inflated to obtain a higher import quota and did not reflect actual imports and consumption. The Commissioner initially reserved his decision on this demand pending verification of figures but later confirmed the demand without proper verification. The Tribunal noted that the entire case was based on FORM A, and subsequent proceedings were deemed illegal and void ab initio as the demand was based on unverified and unsupported figures.2. Compliance with principles of natural justice:The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner failed to comply with the principles of natural justice by not providing the appellant with an opportunity for a personal hearing before confirming the demand. The Tribunal had repeatedly remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper investigation. Despite this, the Commissioner confirmed the demand without adhering to the Tribunal's directions, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.3. Adequacy of evidence supporting the demand:The Tribunal highlighted the lack of substantial evidence to support the demand. The department did not undertake necessary investigations to verify the correctness of the figures in FORM A. There was no corroborative evidence to show how the alleged excess quantity of imported material was transported, manufactured, and sold. The Tribunal emphasized that the charge of clandestine removal requires concrete evidence, which was absent in this case. The entire demand was based on assumptions and presumptions, making it unsustainable.4. Relevance of findings by DGFT and Income Tax Authorities:The Tribunal took into account the findings of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and the Income Tax Authorities, which concluded that there was no improper import or misutilization of imported material by the appellant. The DGFT had specifically stated that the appellant properly accounted for all imported materials, and the Income Tax Authorities dropped similar charges based on the same evidence. The Tribunal noted that these findings should have been considered by the Central Excise Department, and the demand should have been dropped accordingly.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, concluding that the entire adjudication proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, lack of substantial evidence, and the findings of other authorities exonerating the appellant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.