2014 (2) TMI 327 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Clandestine removal of goods - Import made without payment of duty - Held that - Demand of Central Excise duty in all the cases has come down to Rs.32, 31, 597/- on the basis of report dt.18.9.2012 - it is appropriate the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise to decide afresh all these issues against the report dt. 18.9.2012. In view of that we set aside all the impugned order and matters are remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise Tirunelveli to decide on quantification of demand of duty - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Common issue involving appeals regarding demand of Central Excise duty, penalty, and interest on the manufacture of Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) from imported and domestically procured charcoal without payment of duty.

Analysis:

1. Demand of Central Excise Duty:
The appellants, 100% Export Oriented Unit, faced demands of duty, interest, and penalty for the period April 2005 to September 2008 totaling Rs.15,34,95,490/-. The case involved discrepancies in production records, alleged clandestine removal of GAC, and evasion of duty. The Tribunal considered various submissions and reports, ultimately recalculating the duty demand to Rs.32,31,597/- based on a report dated 18.9.2012. The appellant contested this recalculation, arguing against the basis of theoretical calculations and conjectures. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise for a fresh decision on the quantification of the demand, allowing the appellant to raise all issues on merit and calculation discrepancies.

2. Recalculation and Remand:
The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Tuticorin, submitted a report highlighting factors affecting yield variations in charcoal production, supporting the authenticity of a letter from the Coconut Development Board. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, informed that the demand of duty would be recalculated to Rs.32,31,597/- for the appeals. The Tribunal, after considering submissions, remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Commissioner, setting aside previous orders. The appellant's contention of no clandestine removal and objection to the recalculated duty formed the basis for the remand.

3. Penalty and Larger Period of Limitation:
The appellant argued against invoking penal provisions due to the absence of clandestine removal, which would warrant a larger period of limitation. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider this issue afresh during the redetermination of the duty demand. The remand allowed the appellant to present their case regarding penalties and limitations, emphasizing the absence of clandestine activities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals by remanding the matter for a fresh decision on the quantification of duty demand, considering the appellant's objections and submissions regarding production records, yield variations, and allegations of clandestine removal. The remand provided an opportunity for a detailed review of the case, ensuring fairness and thorough consideration of all relevant issues.