2005 (4) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand on excess quantities of Caustic Soda Lye supplied to customers.
- Applicability of Rule 173H and L in the case.
- Challenge to lower appellate authority orders in Appeal Nos. E/903/2003 and E/902/2003.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty demand on excess quantities
The appellants were involved in the manufacture of Caustic Soda Lye and supplied excess quantities of the product to customers without payment of duty. The Department contended that these excess quantities were subjected to a manufacturing process and then supplied to third parties at a lower price. Consequently, duty demands were raised for different periods, amounting to Rs. 36,837/- and Rs. 25,215/-, along with penalties. The lower authorities upheld the duty demands and penalties under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 173H and L
The appellants argued that their case did not fall under Rule 173H or L as the goods returned by customers were cleared without payment of duty and were part of larger consignments. The Department contended that the returned goods were subjected to a manufacturing process and should have been cleared on payment of duty, with a refund claim possible under Rule 173L. The Tribunal noted that the relevant rules prohibited the return of duty-paid goods into the factory except under specific conditions, which were not met in this case. The appellants were advised to approach the Chief Commissioner for necessary permissions and ratifications.

Issue 3: Challenge to lower appellate authority orders
During the hearing, the appellants reiterated their position, while the Department argued against the lack of evidence supporting the appellants' claims. The Tribunal found no fault with the lower authorities' orders due to insufficient evidence but allowed the appellants the opportunity to prove their case before the Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals, emphasizing the appellants' option to present evidence to the Chief Commissioner for further consideration and potential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demands and penalties but advised the appellants to seek appropriate approvals from the Chief Commissioner by providing necessary evidence to support their case.