2015 (2) TMI 232 - HC - Central Excise

Contravention of the provisions of Rules 9(1), 51, 52A, 53, 54, 173F, 173G, 174 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that - it is evident that the order of the Tribunal has been set aside in its entirety and the Tribunal was directed to re-consider the issue as to whether M/s.Southern Press Tools is entitled for exemption under Notification No.164/87 dated 10.6.1987 for the goods cleared to M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. without observance of the procedures prescribed under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also whether penalty can be imposable under Rule 209(A) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. - . Since the entire order of the Tribunal has been set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the issue de novo, the present appeal by the assessee on a limited issue does not survive. Therefore, the plea now made by the appellant can be agitated by the appellant before the Tribunal and the Tribunal inter alia is directed to go into the issue raised by the present appellant on the plea of confiscation of goods as well - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Universal Radiators Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 100 - Supreme Court of India - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of whether the appellant is considered the manufacturer without machinery on premises.
2. Rejection of applications to present additional evidence regarding the absence of machinery and incorrect manufacturing facts.

Issue 1:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing tools and components, was found with a second premises where they manufactured radiator components. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging contravention of various Central Excise Rules. The appellant responded, denying the manufacturing of certain components due to the absence of machinery at the second premises. Despite the reply, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty and penalty. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration, leading to another confirmation by the Commissioner. Upon a subsequent appeal, the Tribunal granted exemption under a notification but upheld the redemption fine while deleting the penalty. The appeal was filed against this order.

Issue 2:
The Department appealed against the co-noticee, M/s. Universal Radiators Limited, at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, referencing a previous case, set aside the Tribunal's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. As a result, the Tribunal was directed to review whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under a specific notification without following the prescribed procedures. The Supreme Court's decision rendered the present appeal on a limited issue redundant, instructing the Tribunal to address the appellant's concerns regarding the confiscation of goods.

In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed by way of remand due to the Supreme Court's decision setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing a fresh consideration of the issues related to the appellant's entitlement to exemption and the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal was instructed to reevaluate the matter in accordance with the law, rendering the present appeal unnecessary on the limited issue raised.