2012 (5) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant states that the lower appellate authority has not dealt with the appellant s claim for full quantum of SSI exemption. Further, he states that the appellant was of bonafide belief on the basis of a newspaper report that the impugned goods were exempted from duty and therefore, the question of applying the extended period of limitation cannot arise. - matter remanded back to pass a proper and detailed speaking order.

Summary

Issues involved: Remand by lower appellate authority regarding treatment of invoice price as cum duty value and claim of modvat credit on inputs, appellant's claim for full quantum of SSI exemption, application of extended period of limitation, consideration of bonafide belief, examination of invoices for modvat benefit.

Analysis:

1. The lower appellate authority remanded the matter to the original authority to address the treatment of the invoice price as the cum duty value and the claim of modvat credit on inputs. The appellant's advocate highlighted that the lower appellate authority did not address the appellant's claim for the full quantum of SSI exemption. The appellant argued that they believed in good faith, based on a newspaper report, that the goods were duty exempt, thus contending against the application of the extended period of limitation. The advocate also pointed out that specific case laws supporting this belief were not considered by the authorities below.

2. Given the partial remand by the lower appellate authority, the Tribunal made it an open remand, directing the original authority to thoroughly examine all issues, including the claim for full quantum of SSI exemption, the appellant's bonafide belief, and the relevant case laws cited by the appellant to support the non-application of the extended period of limitation. The original authority was instructed to consider all aspects of the case, potentially examining the appellant herself regarding the bonafide belief claim. Furthermore, a detailed examination of the invoices claiming modvat benefit was mandated, with a requirement for the original authority to determine if they were indeed modvatable invoices.

3. The appeal was allowed by way of remand under the specified terms. The original authority was tasked with issuing a comprehensive and detailed speaking order addressing each aspect of the case. Importantly, the original authority was directed to provide a fair opportunity for the proprietrix appellant and her advocate, if any, to present their case during the proceedings.

This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough examination of all relevant issues, proper consideration of claims and beliefs presented by the appellant, and the necessity for detailed findings on critical aspects such as the treatment of invoice prices, SSI exemption claims, and modvat credit eligibility based on the invoices provided.