2011 (4) TMI 1117 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demanded with interest and a penalty - imposed on the ground that the respondents had manufactured various goods at their work site and cleared the same for their use at Thane Creek Bridge work site - contention of the Revenue is that the exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE and Circular dated 18.5.99 are not applicable to the goods manufactured by the respondents at site since the same was available only in respect of CETH 68.07 and 7308.50 whereas the goods manufactured by the respondents fall under other chapters Held that - Show-cause notice did not even allege manufacture at site, appeal filed by the Revenue is on a totally different ground vis- -vis the issues raised in the show-cause notice, appeal filed by the Revenue rejected

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty, penalty imposition, appeal against the decision, consideration of exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE and Circular dated 18.5.99.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a case where a duty of Rs.18,28,829.48 was demanded from the respondents, along with a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs, for manufacturing goods at their work site in Vashi, Navi Mumbai, and clearing them for use at Thane Creek Bridge work site. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a decision of the Tribunal in the respondents' own case. The Revenue filed an appeal against this decision. The Tribunal noted that the show-cause notice alleged manufacturing of goods at Vashi and clearance to the Thane Creek Bridge work site. The original adjudicating authority considered certain items as immovable property and not liable to duty, while the Commissioner (Appeals) treated the goods as immovable property and therefore not liable to duty, without considering other issues. The Revenue contended that the exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE and Circular dated 18.5.99 did not apply to the goods manufactured by the respondents at the site. However, it was observed that the show-cause notice did not even allege manufacturing at the site, and the Notification and Circular were not considered by the lower authorities. The appeal filed by the Revenue was found to be on different grounds compared to the issues raised in the show-cause notice and the decisions of the lower authorities.

Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, as it was based on different grounds than those raised in the show-cause notice and considered by the lower authorities. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning the grounds of appeal with the issues raised in the initial notice and considered by the adjudicating authorities to ensure a coherent legal process and decision-making.