2012 (5) TMI 13 - SC - Central Excise

Determination of the cost of raw material in the assessable value of the final product for the purpose of levy of Excise duty - The application filed on behalf of the assessee for recall of the said order was dismissed by the Tribunal by a cryptic order dated 21st September, 2007. It is argued that the appellant had made out a very strong case for recall of order dated 31st May, 2006 but the Tribunal without adverting to the cause shown for non-appearance of the counsel, dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant did not have a strong case on merits. - Held that - Determining the question of invocation of extended period of limitation in the interest of justice, it is a fit case where the appellant deserves to be granted adequate opportunity to place before the Tribunal its view point on all the aspects of their case - the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication - in favors of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding determination of cost of raw material in assessable value for levy of Excise duty.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed by the assessee under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the appeals by the Revenue against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since a common question of law was raised in these appeals, they were consolidated and disposed of by a common order. The central issue revolved around the determination of the cost of raw material in the assessable value of the final product for the purpose of levying Excise duty.

The appellant contended that the Tribunal's main order was ex parte, and their application for recall was dismissed without proper consideration. The appellant argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to present their case, resulting in vital legal and factual issues not being addressed. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel argued that since the main issue had been addressed by the Tribunal, remanding the case would serve no purpose. After careful consideration, the Court found that the appellant deserved a fair chance to present their viewpoint, especially regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on all the raised issues in accordance with the law. Both parties were granted the freedom to present all available grounds before the Tribunal. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the appeals with no order as to costs.