2015 (8) TMI 198 - SC - Central Excise

Concessional rate of duty on Cement - installed capacity - Benefit of Notification No. 24/91-CE dated 25.07.1991 - whether the respondent, an industrial unit, is having a plant with installed capacity of less than 1,98,000 tonnes per annum for manufacturing ordinary Portland Cement to enable it to get the benefit of Notification No. 24/91-CE dated 25.07.1991 and Notification No. 5/93 dated 28.02.1993 - Held that - CESTAT in this behalf relied upon the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries which had certified the installed capacity to be 1,94,040 tonnes per annum. - Some of the material produced is that of respondent itself and it is argued that the respondent had accepted that its installed capacity was more than 1,98,000 tonnes per annum. In a case like this, we are of the opinion that the CESTAT should have considered the material placed by the Revenue and only then come to a conclusion as to whether the certificate issued by Commissioner of Industries should be acted upon or not. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the industrial unit's plant has an installed capacity of less than 1,98,000 tonnes per annum for manufacturing ordinary Portland Cement to qualify for duty rate benefits under specific notifications.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the installed capacity of an industrial unit manufacturing cement to determine eligibility for concessional duty rates under certain notifications. The respondent obtained a certificate stating an installed capacity of 1,94,040 tonnes per annum, leading to a demand of evaded duty and penalties. The Commissioner of Industries certified the capacity, and the CESTAT allowed the appeal based on this certification. However, the Revenue argued that the installed capacity exceeded 1,98,000 tonnes per annum, supported by various materials, including the respondent's own submissions. The Supreme Court noted the reliance on the Commissioner's certificate but emphasized the need to consider all evidence before reaching a conclusion. As the CESTAT did not thoroughly assess the Revenue's material, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, instructing the CESTAT to review all evidence and make a decision within six months.

This judgment highlights the importance of a comprehensive review of all evidence in determining an industrial unit's installed capacity for duty rate benefits. It underscores the need for tribunals to consider conflicting materials and make informed decisions based on a thorough analysis. The Court's decision to remand the case emphasizes the significance of a fair and detailed assessment in resolving disputes related to duty rate eligibility.