2002 (11) TMI 391 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise is valid based on the provisional assessments and alleged non-payment of duty?
2. Whether the appellant's contention regarding the payment of duty on yarn for non-dutiable grey fabrics is justified, considering the composite mill operations?
3. Whether the Commissioner's order confirming the demands is appropriate given the contradictory findings and lack of application of mind?

Analysis:

1. The appeal and stay application stemmed from an Order-in-Original confirming demands and penalties by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai. The appellant argued that the assessments were provisional, supported by documents. The department acknowledged the provisional nature of assessments but contended that the appellant incorrectly availed deferred duty payment under an inapplicable notification. The appellant's failure to follow Rule 49A procedures rendered provisional assessment irrelevant to the duty non-payment issue. The Deputy Commissioner's letter clarified the composite mill's operations, emphasizing duty payment on grey fabrics' yarn content. The appellant challenged the demand, citing prior duty payments and procedural adherence. The Tribunal noted the provisional assessments but remanded the case for de novo consideration, emphasizing the need to finalize assessments and issue a show cause notice for any duty discrepancies.

2. The appellant's representative highlighted the composite mill's unique yarn duty payment process, following CBEC clarifications. The Deputy Commissioner's letter supported the appellant's duty payment practices for grey fabrics, emphasizing no duty shortfalls. Despite the appellant's assertions and documentary evidence, the Commissioner confirmed the demands. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order lacking proper reasoning, remanding the case for reassessment based on the provisional assessments and procedural compliance, directing the Commissioner to address the plea of provisional assessment in the reevaluation.

3. The Commissioner's order indicated the appellant's failure to provide sufficient details on yarn usage for non-exempted grey fabrics, justifying the demand confirmation. The appellant reiterated the procedural duty calculation method and submissions made before the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed a contradiction between the Deputy Commissioner's clarifications, prior duty payments, and the Commissioner's decision. Finding a lack of proper consideration and a non-speaking order, the Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh assessment by the Commissioner, emphasizing the need to address the provisional assessments and duty discrepancies systematically.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case for reevaluation, focusing on finalizing provisional assessments, addressing duty differences, and ensuring procedural compliance for duty payments on yarn used in grey fabrics within the composite mill operations. The Commissioner was directed to consider the provisional assessment plea and issue show cause notices for any duty variations, emphasizing a thorough review of all aspects before finalizing the assessment.