Appellate Tribunal remands duty demand case for fair reassessment, stressing consideration of appellant's concerns.

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal by remanding the case for a fresh calculation of duty demands. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper consideration of the appellant's concerns, including the non-provision of the Assistant Commissioner's report, lack of discussion on the appellant's prepared chart, and failure to extend the small scale exemption. The decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the duty demand, taking into account all relevant factors and submissions by the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of goods and duty demand.
2. Small scale exemption notification benefit.
3. Calculation of duty demand based on transformers used.
4. Non-availability of Assistant Commissioner's report.
5. Non-extension of small scale exemption.
6. Discussion of the appellant's prepared chart.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was involved in manufacturing stereo cassettes players/ recorders under their brand name 'Royal' and 'York' belonging to another person. Central Excise officers conducted a search and alleged clandestine removal of goods, demanding duty of around Rs. 34 lakhs.

2. The Appellate Authority acknowledged the appellant's ownership of 'Royal' and eligibility for the small scale exemption notification. However, the matter was remanded for recalculating duty based on transformers used for 'Royal' products. No appeal was filed against this decision.

3. Upon re-adjudication, the duty demand was confirmed at around Rs. 14 lakhs, higher than the appellant's calculation of Rs. 70,000. The Assistant Commissioner's report, crucial for the calculation, was not provided to the appellant. The benefit of small scale exemption was also not extended.

4. The Commissioner upheld the duty demand based on the Assistant Commissioner's report, stating that the calculation was appropriate. The appellant's contentions regarding the report's unavailability and non-extension of exemption were not addressed.

5. The appellant's appeal highlighted the failure to provide the Assistant Commissioner's report, lack of discussion on their prepared chart, and the non-extension of the small scale exemption. The Appellate Tribunal found these grievances valid, setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a fresh calculation of demands.

6. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority must address the appellant's concerns properly. The appeal was allowed by remand to ensure a fair assessment of the duty demand, considering all relevant factors and submissions made by the appellant.

---