2009 (11) TMI 759 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against demand of duty for a specific period in the assessee's appeal.
2. Challenge against dropping of demand of duty in favor of the assessee for another specific period in the Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:
1. The assessee appealed against a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 28,85,981/- for the period 15-11-1999 to 31-12-2001. The original authority reduced the duty to Rs. 9,870/-, which had already been paid. The Revenue challenged the dropping of the remaining demand in favor of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

2. Another issue arose from a show-cause notice dated 17-4-2002, where a demand of duty of Rs. 49,76,350/- was raised on the assessee for the period 1997-98 to 31-12-2001. The Commissioner dropped the demand for the period up to 14-11-1999 due to the Department's failure to prove suppression of facts. However, for the subsequent period 15-11-1999 to 31-12-2001, the Commissioner held that the duty needed to be reassessed as per the law, leading to the assessee's appeal against this decision. The Commissioner also addressed penalty-related issues, finding no reason to impose penalties under Section 11AC.

3. The Tribunal found that in both cases, the goods were assessed for excise duty based on a formula not governed by CAS-4, which was introduced later. The Tribunal directed the authorities to redo the assessments in accordance with CAS-4 formula, remanding the valuation dispute to the Jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The Revenue's appeal was allowed by way of remand.

4. Regarding the assessee's appeal against the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessment process for the period from 15-11-1999 to 31-12-2001. The Commissioner's decision was based on the assessments being provisional, but the appellant contested this claim, stating there was no provisional assessment. The Tribunal found errors in the Commissioner's approach and remanded the case, directing a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the challenges against demands of duty for specific periods, discrepancies in assessment processes, and the need to reassess goods in accordance with the CAS-4 formula. The judgments resulted in remands for both the assessee and the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of correct assessment procedures and adherence to relevant legal provisions.