2015 (11) TMI 251 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - Imposition of penalty - Benefit of Cum duty - Held that - on the issue of cum-duty is also required to be decided by the Adjudicating authority in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Agro Industries Limited vs. Commissioner (2007 (3) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and CCE Jaipur vs. Dugar Tetenal India Limited (2008 (3) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT ). - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Clandestine removal of goods
- Benefit of cum-duty price extension
- Interpretation of case laws
- Remand to adjudicating authority

Clandestine removal of goods:
The appeals were filed against an order confirming duty and imposing penalties for clandestine removal of goods. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue was not being contested on merits, but the benefit of cum-duty price had not been extended to them. The case records were examined, and it was noted that the cum-duty determination issue was not raised before the lower authorities. Referring to a judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a detailed consideration of the appeal on all points raised by the appellant.

Benefit of cum-duty price extension:
The appellant contended that they were entitled to the benefit of cum-duty price based on various case laws. The Revenue, however, argued against extending this benefit, citing decisions from the CESTAT Delhi Bench and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal observed that the issue of cum-duty determination had not been raised earlier and referred to a High Court judgment emphasizing the importance of addressing all points raised by the parties. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a decision on the admissibility of the cum-duty benefit in light of the case laws presented by both sides.

Interpretation of case laws:
The appellant relied on several case laws to support their claim for the benefit of cum-duty price. These included judgments such as Shri Chakra Tyres Limited vs. CCE and CCE vs. Dugar Tetenal India Ltd. Additionally, the appellant referred to a judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Choithram Hospital & Research Centre. The Revenue, on the other hand, cited decisions from the CESTAT Delhi Bench and the Supreme Court to argue against extending the cum-duty benefit. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the case laws and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a detailed consideration.

Remand to adjudicating authority:
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. The decision was based on the need to address the issue of admissibility of the cum-duty benefit in accordance with the various case laws referenced by both parties. The case was remanded for a fresh determination on this specific issue to ensure a fair and comprehensive consideration of all relevant points.