2003 (9) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of duty short-paid during a specific financial year; Incorrect calculation of value of clearances for availing exemption under Notification 7/97; Acceptance of proof of exports; Consideration of Form H as evidence of exports; Inclusion of value of goods resold in the value of clearance; Failure to consider relevant evidence and legal aspects by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The case involved the recovery of duty short-paid by the appellant during a particular financial year due to alleged incorrect calculation of the value of clearances for claiming exemption under Notification 7/97. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a partial demand, noting that while the value of export clearances was accepted based on available proof, the value of goods resold lacked evidence. The appellant contended that even without proof of exports submitted to the jurisdictional authority, export could be established through Form H, as per Board instructions. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without considering this aspect or the evidence presented.

Regarding the acceptance of Form H as proof of exports and the inclusion of value of goods resold in the clearance value, the appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to assess the evidence properly. The appellant highlighted the Board's Circular allowing Form H from small-scale units as export proof and the lack of evidence supporting the inclusion of resold goods in clearance value. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Board's Circular was valid and applicable, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have evaluated the Form H certificate presented. As there was no evidence of goods resold, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to consider this point.

In the absence of proper consideration of relevant evidence and legal aspects by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reevaluate the acceptability of goods manufactured by the appellant, determine the duty payable, and assess any potential penalties after providing the appellant with a fair hearing. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all evidence and legal aspects before making decisions in matters of duty recovery and exemption claims.