TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yester yarn and Polyester Cotton Blended yarn, Cotton fabrics, Polyester fabrics, etc., falling under Chapter 52, 55 & 59 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant vide letter dated 07.11.2000 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Ambasamudram, appears to have stated that they had conducted stock taking as on 01.10.2000 and on verification with the RG-1 Register they found certain discrepancies which they were trying to rectify. 4. That appears to have led the officers of the Central Excise Department to conduct stock checking, from 11.11.2000 to 13.11.2000 and 17.11.2000 in the Bonded Excise Godowns, Grey Ware House and Finished Ware House. Similarly, stock taking of processed fabrics was conducted during 14.11.2000 & 15.11.2000. The officials appear to have found some excess/shortage of goods. The appellants vide their clarificatory letter Sales Admn/Excise/Ambas dated 20.01.2001 along with enclosures containing 64 sheets appear to have clarified as to how there was no excess or shortage of goods, but ultimately the above culminated in the issuance of a Show Cause Notice No.20/2001 dated 02.11.2001 alleging shortage of goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.2,000/- under Rule 223A. Similarly, the Commissioner also passed Order-in-Original No.12/COMMR/CE/2008 dated 27.11.2008 confiscating the fabrics and appropriating Rs.10 lakhs by enforcing the Bond. A penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was also imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant once again appears to have filed Appeals before the CESTAT and the same was disposed of vide Final Order Nos.550 & 551/09 dated 05.05.2009 by setting aside the impugned orders, with a direction to the Commissioner to supply the Appellant's letter dated 20.01.2001 as directed by the Tribunal in its Final Order No.838-840 of 2006 dated 06.09.2006. The said Final orders of this Bench have attained finality as the same remained unchallenged by any of the parties. 8. The Respondent-Commissioner appears to have filed Applications under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 praying for rectification of Final Order Nos. 550 & 551/09 dated 05.05.2009. It appears that for the first time, it was admitted by the Revenue that the letter dated 20.01.2001 was not available with them and therefore allow them to adjudicate the case with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplied to the assessee before passing the order of adjudication, such nonfurnishing may be construed as an act in violation of principles of natural justice. In this case it is not so. ... ... .... 16. ...... It is apparent that appellant wants to take advantage of the fact that the said letter is missing from the file of the Revenue. ... ... .... 18. From the above discussion of facts and circumstances, we are of the firm view that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in this case, as contended by the appellant, insofar as the non-furnishing of the said letter dated 20-1-2001 is concerned. 19. Admittedly, the said letter, dated 20-1-2001 is not available with the Revenue. It is claimed by the assessee that copy of the said letter is also not available with the assessee. We have already pointed out that the said letter with enclosures had emanated only from the assessee and therefore, it is their own document. We have also pointed out that the said letter is nothing but an explanation regarding the alleged short-fall and excess of the fabrics. Therefore, it was for the assessee to give a suitable reply to the show cause notices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ex Court by affirming the order of the Hon'ble High Court, but with a liberty to the Appellant to urge all contentions before the Tribunal including the one urged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, to demonstrate as to how prejudice has been caused to them by non-furnishing of the said letter dated 20.01.2001 (with enclosures), thereby keeping all the issues open. The relevant portion of the ruling is reproduced below: "14. Though, we are in complete agreement with the contention raised by Shri Shekhar Naphade that order of review or modification which came to be passed on 8-32010 is without sanctity of law deserves to be accepted in the light of the findings recorded at paragraph 25 to 29 of the impugned order and we affirm the same, yet for the reason that matter has now been remanded back to the tribunal for adjudicating the SCN's afresh dissuade us from setting aside the impugned order. 15. The High Court has also rightly not remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for considering the matter afresh and the findings of the High Court recorded under the impugned order in paragraph 19 and 20 referred to supra having been affirmed by us herein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....support of their case before the Respondent. The Respondent appears to have rejected the same with the following observation: "Copies of the inter office memos and computer-generated statements and voluminous work sheets now produced lack authenticity since some of them related to the period prior to the visit of the officers and nothing prevented MCL from producing the records at the time of visit of the officers or at least immediately thereafter. When reconciliation of discrepancy furnished in their letter dated 20.01.2001 had been repudiated, MCL having not come up with any reconciliation after rebuttal of the evidence, and MCL not choosing to file reply even after nearly three years after issue of notice despite receiving all relied upon documents, the reconciliation now attempted cannot be accepted". 15. We find that rejection of the above reply dated 16.09.2008 along with its annexures by the Respondent is a serious lapse, especially when we look at the checkered history of the Appeal. The Appellant did file an explanation dated 20.01.2001 immediately after the visit by the officers and clearly much prior to the show cause notice denying the shortage and ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Register manually based on data generated in the computer system. Their production, clearance and stock of their finished goods, chapter wise details were entered in RG1 register. The Appellant was using a particular software prior to July 1998 and switched over to a new software from July 1998 onwards. Excise documents viz., challans meant for clearance of fabrics manufactured for their Interlining Manufacturing Facility factory and 100% EOU factory were not generated through computer system but prepared manually which could be the reason for the difference. The following discrepancies were noticed by the appellant: (i) Production was accounted in excess as well as short as against Production Report/Balewise Production Report generated from the system, (ii) Fabrics manufactured/processed for their Interlining Manufacturing Facility (IMF) factory and 100% EOU factory were erroneously accounted, (iii) Production of certain quantum of fabrics were accounted under one chapter heading whereas its removals were accounted in another chapter heading for which, stock adjustments were not done properly under both the chapters resulting into excess and ....