2017 (1) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for new evidence on tax appeal, stresses importance of documentation

Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Versus (Presently known as Gillette India Ltd.) Versus C.C.E., Jaipur

The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination and admission of fresh evidence due to discrepancies in the appellant's ... Valuation - the deduction on account of freight, octroi and insurance and allowance of the deduction on account of sales tax to the extent of 5% - natural justice - Held that: - When the required information was submitted by the appellant to the adjudicating authority and the same was not considered in the appeal, then we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the said evidence and decide the issue de novo but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant-assessee - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:Appeal against Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Deductions claimed by the appellant - Disallowance of deductions by Deputy Commissioner - Additional grounds and evidence filed before Commissioner (Appeals) - Interim order for quantification of expenses - Dispute over submission of supportive documents - Remand to Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination and admission of fresh evidence.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal against the Order dated 20.12.2006/11.1.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No.304-305/2006. During the relevant period, the appellant was involved in the manufacture of razor blades and claimed deductions from the assessable value of its clearance for various expenses like freight, insurance, octroi, sales tax, and central excise duty on an equalized basis. The Deputy Commissioner disallowed some deductions and allowed others, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).The appellant then filed an application under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner (Appeals) for raising additional grounds and submitting additional evidence, including Chartered Account certificates with supporting documents. An interim order-in-appeal directed proper quantification of expenses before the appeal's disposal, emphasizing the need for directions to the assessing authority and the appellant for this purpose.The Commissioner (Appeals) observed discrepancies in the submission of supportive documents by the appellant. Despite requests for additional documents, the appellant contended that no further submissions were necessary to verify the claim. The adjudicating authority highlighted the lack of supportive documents for abnormally high deductions and the appellant's failure to provide required evidence as per interim orders. The appellant's list provided during proceedings was acknowledged, but the issue of missing documentation persisted.Upon finding that the appellant's submitted information was not considered in the appeal, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh examination of the evidence and a decision de novo. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity to present additional evidence as per legal provisions. Consequently, both appeals were allowed by way of remand for further proceedings and reevaluation by the Commissioner (Appeals).This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, procedural steps, arguments presented, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for a fresh examination, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to substantiate their claims with proper evidence.