2008 (1) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the assessees that, they had brought back duty paid goods for refining, remaking and reconditioning, and not for subjecting them to fresh manufacture, as contended by the excise authorities in the SCN proposing recovery of duty on freshly manufactured goods revenue not proved that goods were subjected to fresh manufacture so challenge by revenue is not justified

Summary

Issues:
Revenue challenging Commissioner (Appeals) order on duty paid goods brought back for refining, remaking, and reconditioning, not fresh manufacture.

Analysis:
The Revenue contested the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, arguing that duty paid goods brought back into the factory for refining, remaking, and reconditioning were actually subjected to fresh manufacture, contrary to the assessees' claim. The show cause notice proposed a duty recovery on freshly manufactured goods, alleging that defects in angles could only be rectified through fresh manufacture. However, the adjudicating authority dismissed the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice, deeming the averment unsubstantiated by technical material. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue introduced a new ground, asserting that the angles underwent fresh manufacture as they were sold to different customers upon return from the original ones, not the same customers to whom the goods were initially cleared. This new ground was not part of the original show cause notice and failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish fresh manufacture by the Revenue.

The Tribunal further expanded on the grounds presented, including the argument that duty was collected from customers, indicating a manufacturing process took place, and therefore, the assessees should have refunded the duty amount regardless of whether fresh manufacture occurred. These additional grounds were raised for the first time during the appeal before the Tribunal and were not part of the original show cause notice. As the Revenue failed to prove that the angles underwent fresh manufacture, the orders of the lower authorities setting aside the demand for duty and dropping the proceedings initiated in the show cause notice were upheld. Consequently, the impugned order was affirmed, and the appeal was rejected, with the cross-objections disposed of accordingly.