2006 (2) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Dropping of demands raised under show cause notices for recovery of duty.
3. Approval of amended price list without notice or personal hearing to the assessee.
4. Enhancement of prices without challenge by the assessee.
5. Validity of demand raised in show cause notices.
6. Interpretation of sub-section (5) of Section 35E.
7. Decision on the appeal of the assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who had dropped four demands totaling Rs. 3,24,464.50 and allowed the revenue's appeal. Despite notice, no one appeared for the appellants, and the Tribunal heard the ld. SDR and examined the records.

The Tribunal observed that the Assistant Commissioner had dropped demands raised under show cause notices for recovery of duty based on an amended price list approved without notice or personal hearing to the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the demand should not have been dropped as the prices were enhanced and approved earlier without challenge by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with this finding and held that since the price enhancement had been finalized, the demand raised in the show cause notices was justified.

The assessee contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Assistant Commissioner's order on valuation could not be reviewed under sub-section (5) of Section 35E. However, the Tribunal noted that this sub-section was not in force, dismissing the merit of the plea. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and upheld it, rejecting the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the Assistant Commissioner's adjudication order, emphasizing the validity of the demand raised in the show cause notices due to the finalized price enhancement. The Tribunal also clarified the inapplicability of sub-section (5) of Section 35E in the present case, leading to the rejection of the assessee's appeal.