2003 (2) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Manufacture of prestressed concrete sleepers for Railways - Price variation in contract - Duty demand on differential amount - Separate finalization of assessments for different periods - Legality of order of remand by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellants manufactured prestressed concrete sleepers for Railways under contracts with price variation clauses. A show cause notice was issued for a duty demand of around Rs. 35 Lakhs due to price variation from August 1992 to June 1996. The Assistant Collector confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,16,790.94 after adjustments, which was already paid by the assessee. The Revenue appealed this decision, leading to the impugned order-in-appeal. The order directed separate finalization of assessments for different periods and confirmed duty demand on MCI inserts, allowing the assessee to claim excess payment for HTS Wires separately.

The assessee contended that the order was unjust as price finalization for the entire period was done together, with escalation in one item and a fall in another. They argued for setting off higher duty against lower duty to determine the net payable amount. The Revenue supported separate finalization for two periods due to different contracts and MCI inserts being relevant only up to 1995. The Revenue's appeal challenged the order as a remand, citing an amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal found no error in the Asstt. Collector's combined finalization of assessments for 1992-1996, as per the remand order. It deemed objections to the combined assessments baseless, as all were provisional and adjustments were made correctly. Reopening assessments for separate finalization was seen as unnecessary duplication of work. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal, while the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal, and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The decision emphasized the validity of the combined finalization of assessments, dismissing objections raised by the Revenue and underscoring the correctness of the adjustments made by the Asstt. Collector.