2011 (6) TMI 79 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Notification No.8/2003-CE dt.1.3.03 - It will not be out of place to observe that it is equally the responsibility of the adjudicating/appellate authority to arrive at correct decision by taking into account various precedent decisions of the Tribunal - even if the assessee has not raised some particular issue it is legally obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to take the same into consideration and to arrive at just and fair finding as long as the facts are not in dispute and it is only the legal issue which is required to be decided - In fact claim of exemption notification is a question of law and can be raised at any point of law - mere fact that an appeal was filed against the adjudication order is reflective of their protest against the said impugned order - Decided in the favour of assessee by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of SSI Notification No.8/2003-CE to the appellants.
2. Imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority.
3. Refusal by the appellate authority to consider the plea regarding the notification.
4. Legal nature of the plea raised by the appellant.
5. Duty payment by the appellant and its implications on notification benefit.
6. Responsibility of the appellate authority to consider legal issues even if not raised before.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the issue of whether the appellants, engaged in manufacturing gear boxes, were entitled to the benefit of SSI Notification No.8/2003-CE despite using castings with the brand name CETRON embossed on them. The Revenue contended that using another product's brand name rendered them ineligible for the notification benefit.

2. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty on the firm and its proprietor for using castings with the brand name CETRON, leading to a dispute regarding the penalty imposition.

3. The appellate authority refused to consider the appellant's plea regarding the notification, citing that it was not raised before the original adjudicating authority. However, the penalty on the proprietor was set aside.

4. The appellant argued that the legal nature of the plea allowed it to be raised at any point, supported by precedents like Gopi Chand & Co. Vs. CCE and CST Vs. Bacha Finlease.

5. The appellant contended that the duty payment did not imply acceptance of liability, as the appeal filed against the adjudication order reflected their protest. Precedents like Hutchisom Max Telecom Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE were cited to support this argument.

6. The Tribunal emphasized the responsibility of the appellate authority to consider legal issues, even if not raised before, to arrive at a just and fair decision. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh examination of the appellant's plea in light of relevant legal precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment delves into the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the legal principles guiding the decision-making process of the Tribunal.