2016 (5) TMI 898 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - Incorrect determination of assessable value of finished goods - failed to include the cost of drawing and design charges in the assessable value of the Seamless Rings - Appellant contended that after this Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority they had filed a refund clai seeking refund of the duty deposited pursuant to this Tribunal s Order in disposing their stay application. Held that - pursuant to this Tribunal s Order refund has been allowed by the Asst. Commissioner, albeit a pre-deposit refund, but, on scrutiny of the fact relating to drawing and design charges attributable to machined and unmachined rings. It is found that the Assistant Commissioner s order sanctioning refund on the same issue was not before either of the authorities below; thus, we are of the opinion that the matter be remanded to the Adjudicating authority for reconsideration of all issues afresh taking into consideration all the evidences placed by the Appellant before the Assistant Commissioner while claiming the refund, the evidences now produced before this Tribunal, and the evidences that would be produced during the course of denovo proceeding. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA No. Commr(A)/153/VDR-II/2008
- Inclusion of drawing and design charges in the assessable value of Seamless Rings
- Refund claim filed after Tribunal remand
- De novo proceeding initiated after a decade
- Confirmation of demand by Addl. Commissioner
- Request for remand to Adjudicating authority
- Consideration of evidences for refund
- Time-frame for completion of adjudication proceeding

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against OIA No. Commr(A)/153/VDR-II/2008 regarding the inclusion of drawing and design charges in the assessable value of Seamless Rings. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of facts related to the duty demand on clearances of machined rings and the inclusion of design and development charges in the assessable value.

2. The appellant filed a refund claim after the Tribunal's remand order. The Assistant Commissioner allowed a partial refund, considering the amount involved in unmachined rings and the duty paid on machined rings. However, a de novo proceeding was initiated after a decade, confirming the entire demand due to lack of evidence on drawing and design charges for unmachined rings.

3. The appellant argued that they had already received a refund on the same issue from the Assistant Commissioner based on evidences produced. The Tribunal found that the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating authority for reconsideration of all issues, including the evidences presented for the refund claim and during the de novo proceeding.

4. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating authority to complete the adjudication proceeding within three months from the date of communication of the order. Both parties agreed to cooperate, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal by way of remand for a comprehensive reconsideration of the issues involved.