2008 (5) TMI 551 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Payment of additional duty after including JPC Cess in the assessable value of products subject to JPC Cess at the material time.

Analysis:
The issue in this appeal revolves around the payment of additional duty after including JPC Cess in the assessable value of products subject to JPC Cess at the material time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has previously ruled that such Cess is includible in the appellant's case. Following this decision, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for calculating the differential duty amount to be paid by the appellants due to the inclusion of the Cess. The Tribunal, in turn, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Commissioner for further proceedings.

Upon review of the records and detailed arguments, it was found that the appellants did not provide the relevant invoices for the disputed period to the Adjudicating Commissioner, claiming that they were no longer in possession of them. The Department allegedly received copies of the invoices along with RT-12 returns during the material time but did not rely on them. The demand confirmed by the Department was based on the total value of clearance, encompassing items subject to JPC Cess and those not subject to it. The appellants obtained a certificate from the J.P.C. regarding JPC items and the total Cess paid at the time, calculated the duty amount accordingly, and have already paid a substantial sum. In contrast, the Department confirmed a duty demand significantly higher than the amount paid by the appellants.

The Tribunal emphasized that the Department must substantiate the calculation of the demand with proper evidence, including clearance particulars from the invoices allegedly submitted by the appellants. The Department had the authority to summon necessary documents if they did not possess the invoices. Lacking supporting documents for the higher demand exceeding Rs. 11.00 crores, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, waiving the requirement for them to make a predeposit of the balance amount during the appeal's pendency. Given the substantial amount involved, either party was granted the liberty to request an early hearing of the case for expedited resolution.