2017 (3) TMI 1500 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of SCN - demand not quantified in SCN - Benefit of SSI under N/N. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 - Revenue s case is that since the final products were exempted and therefore untrimmed goods, which were intermediate goods manufactured for making final products, should attract duty - Held that - the SCN dated 26.06.1997 has not quantified the demand raised. It has mentioned that the quantification would be done at the stage of adjudication. As the demand was not quantified through the SCN such SCN is not sustainable. There has been total failure of framing of charges. Therefore, the said SCN dated 26.06.1997 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23.07.1996 regarding duty exemption on Trimmed goods.
2. Eligibility for small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 for untrimmed goods.
3. Adjudication based on show cause notice dated 26.06.1997.
4. Appeal against Order-in-Original No.174/MBD/2005 dated 31.10.2005.
5. Comparison of previous adjudication and current appeal.
6. Sustainability of the show cause notice dated 26.06.1997.

1. Interpretation of Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23.07.1996:
The case involves manufacturers of Trimmed and Untrimmed Sheets and Circles of Brass and Copper. Trimmed goods were exempt from duty under Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23.07.1996. The issue arose whether untrimmed goods should attract Central Excise Duty since the final product was exempt. The appellant claimed small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 for untrimmed goods.

2. Eligibility for small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993:
Before the issuance of a show cause notice, the appellant contended eligibility for small scale exemption for untrimmed goods. The show cause notice dated 26.06.1997 raised concerns about the duty on untrimmed goods, calling for duty recovery under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued for exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993.

3. Adjudication based on show cause notice dated 26.06.1997:
The show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No.174/MBD/2005 dated 31.10.2005. The Original Authority dropped the proceedings, citing a previous order. The Revenue appealed, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) holding in favor of the Revenue based on a Tribunal decision overruling previous judgments.

4. Appeal against Order-in-Original No.174/MBD/2005 dated 31.10.2005:
The appellant contested the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, highlighting a previous Order-in-Appeal dated 12.05.1998, which favored the appellant regarding the duty on untrimmed sheets. The department accepted this earlier order, leading to a dispute over the current appeal.

5. Comparison of previous adjudication and current appeal:
The appellant argued that a previous order favored them regarding the duty on untrimmed sheets. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a Tribunal ruling that overruled previous judgments, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

6. Sustainability of the show cause notice dated 26.06.1997:
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice dated 26.06.1997 did not quantify the demand raised, making it unsustainable. The lack of quantification and failure to frame charges rendered the notice invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant consequential relief as per law.