2011 (3) TMI 1229 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty during the period April 2000 to March 2001 in respect of the captively consumed goods - asseesee drew attention to the annexure to the show-cause notice wherein duty liability worked out by the adjudicating authority seems to be erroneous as they demanded the actual value and not the duty - Held that - There is some error in calculation of duty in the show-cause notice. Instead of going into the factual matrix of the case, as to how the duty needs to be calculated, thus this issue should be gone into detail by the adjudicating authority and arrive at the correct duty liability of the appellants - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand

Summary

Issues involved:
Demand of differential duty during April 2000 to March 2001 in respect of captively consumed goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the order-in-appeal dated 20/08/2003. The issue revolved around the demand for differential duty concerning captively consumed goods during the specified period. The show-cause notice alleged the appellant's liability to pay differential duty due to the omission of profit margin for the initial period and incorrect valuation for the subsequent period as per the relevant Central Excise Valuation Rules. The counsel for the appellant pointed out errors in the duty calculation presented in the show-cause notice, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority demanded the actual value instead of the duty. The Judicial Member also acknowledged discrepancies in the duty calculation. Instead of delving into the factual aspects, the Tribunal decided that the adjudicating authority should thoroughly examine the duty calculation issue to determine the correct liability. The Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. It was emphasized that the adjudicating authority must adhere to the principles of natural justice during the process. The appeal was allowed through remand, leaving all issues open for further consideration.