2011 (4) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Determination of duty - stoppage of production - Proof - Provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to seek determination of duty payable on the basis of actual production - Appellants before the Commissioner for abatement for the relevant period for which the appellant had given intimation of stoppage of production has also been rejected on the ground that according to the rule intimation is required to be given when production is re-started, giving details of the time at which the production had stopped and time at which production commenced along with dates - There is no dispute that each date of stoppage of production and commencement of production has been given - There are sufficient decisions of the Tribunal cited before us which says that this much intimation would be sufficient - We feel that the learned Commissioner should take these intimation and consider this issue afresh.

Issues:
1. Determination of duty payable based on actual production under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Rejection of request for determination of actual production by the Commissioner.
3. Submission of log-sheets and other documents by the appellants.
4. Consideration of log-sheets and other records for determining actual production.
5. Rejection of abatement claim by the Commissioner.
6. Department's appeal against allowing abatement.
7. Remand of the matter for fresh adjudication.

Issue 1: Determination of duty payable based on actual production under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellants sought determination of duty based on actual production rather than the provisional capacity determined by the Commissioner. The Commissioner rejected the request citing failure to meet statutory requirements. The relevant provision was Section 3A(4) of the Act. The appellants argued for consideration of actual production based on disruptions and submitted log-sheets and other documents.

Issue 2: Rejection of request for determination of actual production by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner rejected the request for actual production determination, stating that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence. He relied on a precedent where actual production determination was not solely based on RG-1 register. The appellants argued that they had intimated authorities about disruptions, submitted log-sheets, and met requirements.

Issue 3: Submission of log-sheets and other documents by the appellants:
The appellants submitted log-sheets showing production details, shifts, and maintenance during disruptions. These documents were crucial in proving the actual production achieved by the appellants during the relevant period.

Issue 4: Consideration of log-sheets and other records for determining actual production:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of log-sheets and documents in determining actual production. The appellants' submission of log-sheets, along with RG-1 register figures and electricity consumption details, was deemed sufficient evidence for reconsideration by the Commissioner.

Issue 5: Rejection of abatement claim by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner rejected the appellants' abatement claim, stating that the rules required specific details on production stoppage and recommencement. The appellants argued that the provided intimation details were in compliance with Tribunal decisions and should be reconsidered.

Issue 6: Department's appeal against allowing abatement:
The department appealed against the allowance of abatement for a portion of the disputed period. The matter was remanded for the Commissioner to consider the department's grounds for disallowing abatement and make a fresh decision.

Issue 7: Remand of the matter for fresh adjudication:
Both appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Commissioner was directed to consider all observations, submissions, and precedent decisions, ensuring the appellants have a fair opportunity to present their case.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai covers all the issues involved and provides a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.

← Previous Next →