TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correctness of order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CESTAT), whereby, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the imposition of penalty. However, the CESTAT did not set-aside the Excise duty imposed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur upon the appellant and thereby, maintained the Excise duty. 2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 26.04.2023 by formulating the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the CESTAT committed a patent illegality in not setting aside the demand of excise duty while holding that the clandestine removal allegation could not be proved by the revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vo. (C) On 04.07.2017, the demand was again confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of Commissioner, the appellant again preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. This time, the Tribunal by its order dated 21.02.2018 observed that the appellant had failed to account for a quantity of 743.895 MT of methanol, out of which, 453.02 MT has been established as consumed in the production of formaldehyde and further observed that allegation of clandestine removal of formaldehyde was without any basis and confined the demand of clandestine removal at 1378.595 MT of formaldehyde. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by modifying the order of Adjudicating Authority and remanded the matter to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... absolutely justified in passing the order impugned and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Amicus Curiae has brought correct factual and legal position to our notice. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this appeal have been projected in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. In the second round of appeal which was preferred against the order dated 04.07.2017, the CESTAT, New Delhi while passing the order dated 21.02.2018 recorded the following finding after hearing learned counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extent of 1378.595 MT of formaldehyde (finished products) and 453.302 MT of methanol (raw material), consequent to which, the appellant was liable to pay penalty as well as the duty on the shortage of raw material and finished products. Subsequently, the Tribunal has modified the order of Commissioner passed on 04.07.2017 and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to re-quantify the demand and re-decide the penalties on the basis of revised computation. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/Company has not challenged the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Tribunal and, thereby, the same has attained finality. 13. In compliance of order passed by the Tribunal on 21.02.2018, the Principal Commissioner has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval of finished goods at 1378.595 MT of formaldehyde as well as on account of shortage of raw materials, as a result of which, the Tribunal proceeded to set-aside the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act 1944 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, however, duty imposed upon the appellant has not been set-aside. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly maintained the duty imposed upon appellant for the reason that by order dated 21.12.2018, the Tribunal has confirmed the demand of clandestine removal of formaldehyde to 1378.595 MT, in compliance of which, the Commissioner after recomputation imposed the duty of Rs. 21,11,422/- and the said order dated 21.02.2018 has not been challenged by the appellan....