2016 (5) TMI 506 - SC - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - Determination of cost of compressor and assessable value - Tribunal 2006 (7) TMI 665 - CESTAT NEW DELHI held that appellant had kept the Department in the dark of the true value of their products-both excisable and exempted and the items in question did not reflect their actual value is, therefore, acceptable in toto. Therefore, the penalty is imposable - Apex court has set aside the impugned order remanded back to the Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh in view of earlier decision in CCE v. Frick India Ltd. as reported in 2007 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Summary

Issues Involved: Remand of case for fresh consideration on specific issues including costing determination, limitation period, assessable value, and estoppel applicability.

Analysis:

1. Costing Determination Issue:
The Supreme Court found that in a previous case involving the same appellant, the Tribunal's order was set aside for fresh consideration on specific issues. The Court decided that the present appeal required similar treatment. The Court directed the Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh, particularly focusing on determining the costing of each manufactured good as per the guidelines mentioned in a specific judgment and the Tribunal's previous order.

2. Limitation Period and Penalty Issue:
The Court also instructed the Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority to address the issue of the applicability of a longer limitation period of five years and the levy of penalties, as directed in the Tribunal's earlier order. This issue was deemed crucial for the fresh consideration of the case, indicating the importance of complying with the legal requirements related to the limitation period and penalties.

3. Assessable Value Issue:
Another significant issue highlighted by the Supreme Court was the determination of the assessable value by considering the sale value of the goods as "cum-duty," as directed in the Tribunal's previous order. This aspect was identified as essential for the proper adjudication of the case and was specifically mentioned for the Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority to address during the fresh consideration of the matter.

4. Estoppel Applicability Issue:
Lastly, the Court raised the issue of the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel in light of a previous show cause notice being unconditionally withdrawn by the Collector of Central Excise. This issue required examination to determine whether the doctrine of estoppel could be invoked in the current case based on the actions taken in response to the earlier notice. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing this issue during the fresh consideration of the case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Commissioner/Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision on the specified issues, including costing determination, limitation period, assessable value, and estoppel applicability. The judgment underscored the need for a thorough reevaluation of the case based on the specific directions provided, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the legal and factual aspects involved in the matter.