2000 (11) TMI 1050 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal remanding case for de novo adjudication; Approval of price lists for parts of electronic items pending; Alleged contravention of Central Excise Act; Revenue's application for setting aside order and remand; Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Revenue's application; Challenge to Commissioner's order; Scope of Show Cause Notice; Allegation of related persons; Best judgment assessment under Rule 7; Acceptance of Revenue's application by Commissioner; Adjudicating Authority's handling of issues; Setting aside impugned order.

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal remanding case for de novo adjudication
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal remanding the case for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant had submitted multiple price lists for approval, which were pending. A show cause notice was issued alleging contravention of the Central Excise Act, leading to the Assistant Collector approving some price lists and determining the assessable value for others. The Revenue filed an application before the Collector (Appeals) to set aside the order and remand for a fresh decision, which was allowed by the Commissioner. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Commissioner failed to consider relevant material and ignored specific contentions.

Issue 2: Alleged contravention of Central Excise Act and best judgment assessment under Rule 7
The appellant was alleged to have contravened the Central Excise Act by failing to submit necessary documents in support of their claim for deduction in the price lists submitted. The Assistant Collector approved some price lists but determined the assessable value for others using the best judgment assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Revenue raised concerns regarding the approval of price lists related to Modvat inputs and the application of Rule 7, which were not adequately addressed in the adjudication order.

Issue 3: Scope of Show Cause Notice and allegation of related persons
The Revenue contended that certain price lists related to Modvat inputs should have been treated differently if the service centers/dealers were related persons as per the Central Excise and Salt Act. Additionally, they argued that the application of Rule 7 should have been discussed when approval based on other valuation rules was not feasible. The Commissioner allowed the Revenue's application, prompting the appellant to challenge the decision, stating that the issues raised were beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and were not addressed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue 4: Commissioner's decision and setting aside of impugned order
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the issues raised by the Revenue were outside the scope of the Show Cause Notice and were not addressed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner erred in accepting the Revenue's application under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's decision to remand the case for de novo adjudication. The issues raised by the Revenue were found to be beyond the scope of the original Show Cause Notice, leading to the decision to overturn the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the scope of proceedings and ensuring that all relevant issues are addressed within the legal framework provided by the Central Excise Act and associated rules.