2014 (12) TMI 406 - AT - Central Excise

Determination of transaction value - CENVAT credit entitlement on the inputs used for preparation of agarbathi masala - permission for production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that - Appellants had not taken these grounds since the appellants were very confident that Agarbathi masala was not excisable and not marketable - Therefore, there was failure to submit alternative grounds and only when they failed, they realized that they should have made such alternative grounds. We find this explanation to be reasonable If submission of additional evidences is not allowed and the matter is not remanded, it would result in a peculiar situation where the same issue would be receiving different treatments for different periods in the interest of justice and to ensure uniform treatment of the same issues for all the different periods, matter is remanded to original authority for adjudication afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Request for remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority based on the Tribunal's previous remand order for de novo adjudication, consideration of CAS-4 standard, and CENVAT credit entitlement.

Analysis:
The appellants sought remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority based on the Tribunal's previous order directing de novo adjudication to determine the transaction value as per the CAS-4 standard and consider the CENVAT credit entitlement on inputs used for agarbathi masala preparation. The learned counsel admitted that the submissions regarding CAS-4 and CENVAT credit were not raised before the original authority in the present appeals, leading to the filing of miscellaneous applications under Rule 10 and Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982.

The learned A.R. opposed the remand request, arguing that the present appeals were distinguishable from the previous remanded case as no submissions were made regarding CAS-4 and CENVAT credit. Citing precedents, the A.R. contended that additional evidence should not be allowed, relying on the decisions in the cases of Kneader House and United Machinery Works (P) Ltd. In response, the learned counsel explained that they did not raise alternative grounds initially due to confidence in the non-excisable nature of agarbathi masala, leading to a realization of the need for alternative grounds only after initial failure.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and precedent, emphasizing the sparing and judicious exercise of allowing additional evidence. Recognizing the risk of disparate treatment of the same issue for different periods if remand was not granted, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to ensure uniform treatment and reduce the number of orders. The Tribunal acknowledged the reasonableness of remanding the matter for a comprehensive reevaluation by the original adjudicating authority, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case.

In conclusion, the miscellaneous applications were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, with all issues kept open as in the previous remand order. The order was to be issued by dasti as requested by the learned counsel, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the issues involved.

(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court)