2009 (1) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Adjustment - Demand - Limitation - Held that - the branded goods have been cleared on payment of duty, which according to Revenue should not have the paid duty. As such, duty already paid on such branded goods is required to be adjusted against the duty now being demanded from the appellant. Revenue neutrality - Held that - It is the appellant s contention that the duty paid on the branded goods is much more than the duty now being demanded and would neutralize the entire demand, and is required to be verified - the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for small scale exemption notification.
2. Consideration of branded goods for exemption.
3. Suppression of factory location information.
4. Adjustment of duty paid on branded goods against current demand.
5. Limitation period for re-quantification exercise.

Eligibility for small scale exemption notification:
The appellant's factory, located in a rural area, was engaged in manufacturing medicaments and availing the benefit of a small scale exemption notification during the relevant period. However, revenue contended that since the factory was in a rural area, branded goods were also entitled to exemption, leading to the total clearances exceeding the limit and necessitating duty payment.

Consideration of branded goods for exemption:
The appellant was clearing goods manufactured under other manufacturers' brand names by paying duty. The revenue argued that these branded goods should also be considered for exemption, impacting the total clearances and duty liability. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where duty paid on such goods was considered a deposit and could be adjusted against the current demand.

Suppression of factory location information:
The appellant challenged the orders on limitation and merit. The advocate argued against the Commissioner's reasoning that the factory location in a rural area was suppressed, stating that this fact was known to the revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, directing the re-quantification exercise to be within the limitation period.

Adjustment of duty paid on branded goods against current demand:
Following the precedent, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant that duty paid on branded goods, contested by revenue for exemption, should be adjusted against the current duty demand. The appellant claimed the duty paid on branded goods exceeded the current demand, requiring verification by the original adjudicating authority.

Limitation period for re-quantification exercise:
The Tribunal disposed of both appeals by remanding the matter for re-quantification within the limitation period, in line with the appellant's plea. The duty paid on branded goods was to be considered for adjustment against the duty now demanded, potentially neutralizing the demand.

This judgment highlights the complexities of duty liability in cases involving small scale exemptions, branded goods, and the necessity to consider past duty payments for adjustment against current demands, all within the framework of limitation periods for re-quantification exercises.