2006 (1) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Trade Notice No. 18/98 for duty determination.
2. Compliance with Tribunal's remand order regarding production figures for duty calculation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, following a Tribunal directive in a previous case regarding the classification of a furnace in the appellant's factory. The Commissioner's order rejected the appellant's request to consider production figures from 1997-98, opting instead for 1996-97 figures. The appellant argued that they opted for duty payment under the Compound Levy Scheme from September 1, 1997, based on Trade Notices 18/98 and 26/98. They contended that the Tribunal's previous order accepted the 1997-98 production figures, which should be considered for duty determination.

2. The consultant for the appellant highlighted that the Tribunal, in the remand order, emphasized the importance of Trade Notice 18/98 in finalizing duty determination for 1998-99. The consultant argued that the Trade Notice is binding on departmental officers, citing a Supreme Court judgment. On the other hand, the Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) opposed the appellant's plea, supporting the Commissioner's duty confirmation decision.

3. The Tribunal, in its analysis, noted that the Commissioner failed to comply with the remand order by not implementing Trade Notice 18/98, which specified using 1997-98 production figures. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's reliance on 1996-97 production figures unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the implementation of Trade Notice 18/98 for duty calculation, with any necessary consequential relief.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to Tribunal directives and Trade Notices in duty determination processes, emphasizing the binding nature of such legal instruments on departmental officers.