2015 (4) TMI 1224 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Compounded Levy Scheme - the appellant made a request for re-determining their duty liability under section 3A (4) on the basis of their actual production - Held that - the reason given by the Commissioner for determining assessee s duty liability under section 3A (4) is not correct, as when the appellant had made a request for re-determining their duty liability for the period of dispute on the basis of actual production and there is such a provision in sub-section (4) of Section 3A, the Commissioner should have considered their request for the same - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for re-determining the appellant s duty liability on the basis of actual production in terms of sub-section (4) to section 3A of the Central Excise Act - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of duty liability under Compound Levy Scheme.
2. Re-determination of duty liability based on actual production.
3. Consideration of appellant's request by the Commissioner.
4. Remand of the matter for re-determination of duty liability.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the determination of duty liability under the Compound Levy Scheme for a textile manufacturer processing fabrics using a Hot Air Stenter. Initially, the Commissioner fixed the duty liability based on provisional Annual Capacity, but later revised it to include additional factors. The appellant appealed this decision to the Tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for de-novo adjudication after hearing the appellant's arguments. During the proceedings, the appellant requested re-determination of duty liability based on actual production, which the Commissioner rejected citing the company's status under BIFR as a reason for not warranting such re-determination.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not considered the appellant's request for re-determination based on actual production, as allowed under sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's reasoning and held that since the appellant had made a valid request under the law, it should have been considered. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for re-determining the duty liability based on actual production, instructing the Commissioner to consider the evidence and data provided by the appellant in this regard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a re-determination of the appellant's duty liability in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering valid requests made by appellants under the law and ensuring a fair assessment of duty liability based on actual production data.