2011 (1) TMI 1318 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Assessment of duty based on capacity of production, verification of mill parameters, validity of changes made by appellant in "d" factor, obligation to indicate changes post-scheme withdrawal.

Analysis:
1. Capacity of Production Assessment: The appellant, a manufacturer of non-alloy steel products, was subject to duty assessment based on the capacity of their production mill. The dispute arose when the officers alleged discrepancies in the declared mill and the "d" factor value claimed by the appellant, leading to a show cause notice for payment of differential duty.

2. Verification of Mill Parameters: The Commissioner's order was based on a verification conducted in December 2000, where it was found that the appellant had made changes to the mill parameters post-scheme withdrawal. The Commissioner held that the "d" factor should be 197 mm instead of the declared 158 mm, leading to an increased duty liability.

3. Validity of Changes in "d" Factor: The appellant argued that the changes in the "d" factor were made after the scheme's withdrawal in July 2000 and should be considered valid. The appellant contended that the late verification by the department did not account for the changes made and sought to set aside the Commissioner's order.

4. Obligation to Indicate Post-Scheme Changes: The Tribunal considered the obligation of the appellant to indicate changes made post-scheme withdrawal. The Tribunal noted the documentary evidence provided by the appellant regarding the changes in the mill parameters and held that the appellant was not obligated to disclose changes made after the scheme's withdrawal.

5. Decision: After analyzing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's decision to enhance the "d" factor value from 158 mm to 197 mm was not appropriate. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the timing of changes made by the appellant in the mill parameters, considering the scheme's withdrawal and the obligation to disclose post-scheme modifications. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the relevant timeline for changes in determining duty liability, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the presented documentary evidence and lack of obligation to disclose changes made after the scheme's withdrawal.