Judgment:
Per Mathew John, J.
1. In these appeals, there is a finding that the first appellant M/s Sujana Metals had indulged in clandestine manufacture and clearance of TMT bars during the period May 2006 to May 2008. The second appellant, M/s R. D. Enterprises is a dealer who is said to be involved in sale of such non-duty paid goods.
2. The case is made out on the basis of private records of production maintained by the first appellant as against the entries in the statutory record namely, RG-I maintained by the firm. When the matter was heard at stay stage, the Tribunal ordered pre-deposit of Rs.30 lakhs and to report compliance on 19.11.2013 which matter is actually coming up for compliance only today. It was mentioned in the said stay order that at the time of reporting compliance both the sides are at liberty to mention the matter for disposal of the appeals because at the stage of hearing stay petition it was felt that no detailed findings are recorded on certain issues.
3. Today both the parties were heard again on the issue whether the cases need to be remanded to the adjudicating authority. The learned special counsel for Revenue submitted that RG-I register which the appellants are now relying on is a discredited RG-I register inasmuch as statements recorded during investigation showed that the figures in RG-I were not correctly recorded as compared to private records. Therefore, it may not be proper to remand the case back for a reconciliation of entries with the discredited RG-I entries.
4. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the appellants submit that the RG-I registers are supported also by ER-I returns and their main complaint is that clandestine removal is determined by Revenue by comparing the figures in private records with figures in RG-I register on day to day basis. On which ever day the figure in RG-1 was lower as compared to the figure in private record, quantity equal to the difference between the two figures was taken to be clandestinely removed. On the other hand where ever excess quantity was accounted in RG-1 as compared to that in private record such quantities have been ignored. The contention of the appellant is that such reconciliation between figures in the two records should be done over a period and not for each day because there may be delay of a few days in making entries in RG-1 and for such discrepancy alone clandestine removal cannot be held to be proved. He submitted that during adjudication proceeding the appellant had given a worksheet reconciling figures in the two records but no finding has been given on such work-sheets.
5. As a rejoinder, the learned special counsel for Revenue submits that there is finding given on the issue but there is no finding on the worksheet given by the appellant.
6. We have considered submissions on both sides. We note that RG-1 registers can be cross-checked with ER-1 returns filed with the department to verify its correctness and the duty liability discharged on monthly basis. So the RG-1 registers cannot be thrown out as having no value based just on statements given by individuals unless variance with ER-1 returns filed also is demonstrated. Marginal delay in accounting production in RG-1 register by itself may not be conclusive proof of clandestine removal. The contention of the appellant, that the whole case is only a case of delay in making entries in RG1 register of goods produced as reflected in private records, requires re-examination. There should be a clear finding as to why the worksheets submitted, reconciling the figures of alleged clandestine removal to have been actually accounted in RG-1 register and cleared on payment of duty, cannot not be accepted. This is the reason why we are considering it proper to remand this matter for a denovo consideration. We make it clear that the entire matter is kept open in denovo adjudication and all relevant evidences and arguments can be considered by the adjudicating authority.
7. In view of the observations above we set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The appellant should be given fair opportunity of hearing before de-novo adjudication.