2012 (12) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit alleged that the applicants were taking non refundable amount from the customers as security deposit in respect of the reusable containers used in the manufacture of bottled water and Revenue wants to add this amount to the assessable value to the MRP - applicants submitted that the cost of reusable containers has been amortized and included in the MRP Held that - Applicants submitted the documents on 28.11.2011 such as copies of certificate of the Chartered Accountant dated 20.3.2003, Expenses Summary Statement as per Trial Balance as on 31.3.2000, copy of worksheet of landed cost of packing materials, copies of purchase invoices of packing materials etc. In spite of submitting these documents, the same were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties regarding the demand raised by Revenue on the ground of adding non-refundable security deposit to assessable value, compliance with Tribunal's remand order for audit under Section 14A of the Central Excise Act, consideration of evidence and documents submitted by the appellants in the adjudication process.

Analysis:

1. The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties amounting to Rs.36,96,860 for the period April 1999 to February 2000. The dispute arose from Revenue's contention that non-refundable amounts collected as security deposits for reusable containers should be added to the assessable value. The appellants argued that the cost of reusable containers had been amortized and included in the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), making the demands unsustainable.

2. The Tribunal, in its final order dated 20.01.2011, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The Tribunal emphasized the need for an audit under Section 14A of the Central Excise Act to verify the amortization of the cost of reusable containers as claimed by the appellants. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of independent verification of records and documents, stressing that the Chartered Accountant's certificates should not be blindly accepted.

3. Despite the Tribunal's specific direction for an audit under Section 14A, the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order without conducting the required audit. The appellants contended that their submissions, including relevant documents such as Chartered Accountant certificates and expense statements, were not considered during the adjudication process. The failure to conduct the mandated audit and consider the submitted evidence rendered the impugned order unsustainable.

4. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the facts and circumstances, set aside the impugned order, waiving the pre-deposit of dues. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with a directive to comply with the Tribunal's earlier order, conduct the necessary audit under Section 14A, and provide the appellants with a fair opportunity for a personal hearing. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring proper adherence to the Tribunal's directives and due process in the adjudication process.

This detailed analysis highlights the procedural and substantive aspects of the judgment, emphasizing the significance of compliance with legal directives, proper consideration of evidence, and the right to a fair adjudication process for the appellants.