2016 (11) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Penalty - SSI exemption - Held that - The officers having jurisdiction over the respondents factory cannot challenge the fact of payment of duty by the supplier as they have no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment done at the supplier s end. On the applicability of duty on Gypsum, it is claimed by the appellant they would be entitled to SSI exemption benefit - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Duty on clearance of Di-Calcium Phosphate manufactured from Rock Phosphate
- Applicability of duty on clearance of Gypsum
- Interpretation of relevant notifications under Section 11C of the CEA, 1944
- Remand of the matters to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision

Analysis:

1. Duty on clearance of Di-Calcium Phosphate manufactured from Rock Phosphate:
The appellants were involved in manufacturing Di-Calcium Phosphate from Rock Phosphate and Gypsum without discharging the appropriate duty. The advocate argued that a notification under Section 11C of the CEA, 1944, was issued to resolve the dispute regarding the manufacture of Di-Calcium Phosphate. The Tribunal noted that the relevant Notification 04/2016-CX (N.T) dated 12.02.2016 covered the period in question. Additionally, an exemption notification No. 03/2014 CE dated 03.02.2014 was issued for the subsequent period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in light of these observations.

2. Applicability of duty on clearance of Gypsum:
Regarding the levy of duty on the clearance of Gypsum, the advocate argued that if Di-Calcium Phosphate manufactured from Rock Phosphate was not chargeable to duty, the clearance value of Gypsum would fall below the SSI exemption limit. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's claim for SSI exemption benefit on Gypsum. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to decide all issues afresh, including the applicability of duty on Gypsum, in line with the above observations.

3. Interpretation of relevant notifications under Section 11C of the CEA, 1944:
The Tribunal considered the notifications issued under Section 11C of the CEA, 1944, to determine the duty implications on the manufacturing processes involved. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matters to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision was based on the interpretation and application of these notifications to the appellant's case.

4. Remand of the matters to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision:
In light of the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's analysis of the relevant notifications and exemption provisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-examine all issues and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Additionally, a timeframe of three months was set for the disposal of the cases from the date of communication of the order, considering the substantial amount already deposited by the appellant.