2017 (3) TMI 713 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - It is the allegation that the appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of N/N. 8/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 - seven SCN were issued to the respondent-assessee. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority - Held that - the original authority may have already passed the de novo adjudication order as directed in the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal has lost its efficacy - appeal dismissed - decided against Department.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order in appeal No. IND-I/248 - 249/06 dated 29.06.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Indore.

Analysis:
1. The respondent-assessee was engaged in the manufacture of dyed and printed man-made fabrics during the period under consideration. They procured raw materials from indigenous sources, imports, and 100% EOU's against CT-3 certificates. The appellant was alleged to have wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 01.03.1997. Seven show cause notices were issued, leading to appeals by the Revenue against the Commissioner's decision to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.

2. The Commissioner observed discrepancies in the duty demand related to clearance of Polyester Made-ups. The Commissioner set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for re-consideration and passing a fresh order. The Commissioner also held that certain penalties were not sustainable and needed to be re-determined based on re-quantification of the duty demand in the denovo order.

3. The Tribunal noted that the original authority might have already passed the denovo adjudication order as directed by the Commissioner. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed both appeals filed by the department.

This judgment highlights the procedural aspects of adjudication in customs and excise matters, emphasizing the importance of proper consideration and re-determination of penalties based on the denovo order. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals underscores the need for adherence to due process and the authority's discretion in re-examining matters remanded for fresh consideration.