2019 (6) TMI 1583 - HC - Central Excise

Levy of Excise Duty - additional manufactured Castings - Excise Duty upon the cost of free Moulds supplied by BEML stood paid already for the prescribed number of castings manufactured by the assessee and supplied back to the BEML - HELD THAT - The order passed by the Learned Tribunal is a non-speaking order and except relying on the Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contention in a proper perspective and the finding as to whether any additional Excise Duty is payable by the assessee or not is based on factual aspects, the Tribunal ought to have been undertaken this exercise and after considering the objections of the assessee in this regard and giving reasons for arriving such a conclusion, ought to have demanded the additional Excise Duty, if any. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal of the assessee again, in accordance with law preferably, within a period of six months from today - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CESTAT following Larger Bench view
2. Controversy over additional Excise Duty on manufactured Castings from free Moulds supplied by BEML
3. Justification of impugned order by Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CESTAT which dismissed the assessee's appeal based on the Larger Bench view in Mutual Industries v. CCE, Mumbai. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's order was non-speaking and lacked proper appreciation of the contentions presented by the parties. The Tribunal failed to provide reasons for its conclusion regarding the liability of additional Excise Duty, solely relying on the Larger Bench decision.

2. The controversy arose from the demand of additional Excise Duty by the respondent on Castings manufactured by the assessee using free Moulds supplied by BEML. The assessee had already paid Excise Duty on the prescribed number of castings manufactured and supplied back to BEML. The appellant argued that no additional Excise Duty should be applicable on the further castings produced from the free Moulds.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue supported the Tribunal's order, while the Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to conduct a proper assessment of the factual aspects and objections raised by the assessee. The High Court observed that the Tribunal should have provided reasons for its decision and considered the objections raised by the assessee before demanding any additional Excise Duty.

4. In light of the above, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision within six months. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should reevaluate the appeal in accordance with the law, considering all aspects of the case and providing reasons for its conclusions. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal was disposed of without any costs being imposed.