2008 (7) TMI 767 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Debit notes raised on customers for additional charges.
2. Proceedings initiated against the appellant for confirming demand and imposing penalties.
3. Contention regarding exemption from payment of duty under specific notifications.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the issue of debit notes raised by the appellant on customers for additional charges. Investigations revealed that the appellant debited amounts for various charges over and above the value of goods supplied. The Revenue found discrepancies in the charges raised, leading to proceedings being initiated against the appellant. The authorities confirmed a demand and imposed a penalty on the appellant for the raised charges, which were not contested by the appellant.

2. The proceedings initiated against the appellant resulted in an order confirming a demand and imposing a penalty. The appellant argued that separate show cause notices should have been issued for charges related to different units. However, the authorities held that despite having two different factories, the appellant is considered one entity. The issuance of a single show cause notice for common demands was upheld, as there was no duplication of duty demand. The appellant's plea regarding exemption from duty under specific notifications was also addressed.

3. The appellant contended that their final product was exempt from duty payment under specific notifications. The authorities rejected this plea, stating that the appellant was clearing goods on payment of duty during the material period. The benefit of exemption under the notifications was found to be available only if the appellant had not availed Modvat credit. The issue of availment of Modvat credit and the benefit of exemption notification were deemed contradictory in the appellant's submissions. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for further decision on the exemption issue, with the penalty being dependent on the outcome of the remand proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the debit notes raised by the appellant, the proceedings initiated against them, and the contentions regarding exemption from duty payment under specific notifications.