Finalised re-quantification and belated exemption claims could not unsettle the confirmed excise demand and equal penalty.

An earlier appellate direction for re-quantification had attained finality, so the de novo adjudication made in compliance with that direction was not interfered with. The challenge based on alleged denial of natural justice failed because no prior request for opportunity had been made and the relevant material was already on record. The claims for benefit under Notification No. 28/2000-CE(NT) and deduction under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were rejected as belated and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. The alleged stay and Board circular were found not to affect the proceedings, and the re-determined demand with equal penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty sustained in de novo adjudication were liable to be interfered with on the grounds of alleged violation of natural justice, challenge to re-quantification, and claim of statutory benefit at a later stage.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order directing re-quantification had attained finality, and the de novo adjudication proceeded in accordance with that direction. The claim of denial of opportunity was rejected because no such request had been made earlier and the records already contained the relevant material. The claim for benefit under Notification No. 28/2000-CE(NT) dated 31.03.2000 and deduction under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not supported by contemporaneous evidence before the lower authorities and was treated as an afterthought. The reliance on an alleged stay was also found unsupported, and the circular issued by the Board was held not to affect the impugned proceedings.

Conclusion: The demand and equal penalty as re-determined in de novo adjudication were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier appellate direction on re-quantification has attained finality and the record does not show a timely claim or request, a later challenge based on natural justice or belated statutory benefit cannot displace the confirmed demand and penalty.

---