2017 (3) TMI 1594 - AT - Central Excise

Remand order - whether the remand order was valid and whether the first appellate authority was not competent to remand with the assent accorded to the Finance Act, 2001? - Held that - The appellant is not averse to a fresh finding on the submissions made by them; on the contrary, their insistence is that the first appellate authority should do so. Acceptance of their plea by the Tribunal would entail a remand; the persona of the authority rendering the findings afresh should not be of concern to the appellant - There is no reason to find any fault with this determination on the part of the first appellate authority - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over remand order by first appellate authority.
2. Competency of first appellate authority to remand.
3. Consideration of definition of "manufacture" for determining dutiability.
4. Alleged failure of first appellate authority to consider appellant's pleas.

Analysis:
1. The case involved proceedings against a company procuring items from the market to assemble furniture using subcontractors at clients' sites. The duty liability was disputed, resulting in a demand confirmation and penalties imposed. The matter was remanded by the first appellate authority in line with the decision in Craft Interiors Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Bangalore, to segregate articles as "moveable" and "immoveable" for duty determination.

2. The appellant contested the remand order, arguing that it unnecessarily prolonged proceedings as the appellate authority could have decided based on furnished bills. They challenged the authority's competence to remand post the Finance Act, 2001 and the failure to consider the definition of "manufacture" for duty assessment. The appellant raised concerns about the first appellate authority not addressing their submissions adequately.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged the remand order and the necessity for fresh findings on the appellant's submissions. The appellant's insistence was on the first appellate authority conducting this review. The Tribunal agreed that a remand might be necessary to address the taxability cornerstone, as highlighted by the Supreme Court's decision in Craft Interiors Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal found no fault in the first appellate authority's decision to remand for a proper examination of the tax liability foundation.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing both appeals. The decision was based on the proper application of legal principles and the need for a thorough examination of the tax liability issue. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal precedents and ensuring a comprehensive assessment of duty liability in such cases.

(Pronounced in Court)