2017 (7) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - waste - During the course of such manufacture of Absorbent Cotton, cotton waste was generated - it was alleged that the excess cotton waste generation took place - Held that - There are grave inconsistencies on the vital fact, such as the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the raw material imported and indigenously procured, this aspect is very significant to decide the dutiability on the cotton wastes and droppings. Similarly, the various issues raised by the appellant in his submissions was not considered properly by the adjudicating authority - the entire matter requires relook on all the issues - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability on excess cotton waste generation during manufacturing.
2. Interpretation of notification regarding excise duty on cotton waste.
3. Permission requirement for sale of cotton waste in Domestic Tariff Area.
4. Extended period of limitation for duty demand.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding duty liability on excess cotton waste generated during the manufacturing process of Absorbent Cotton by an EOU. The appellant imported Cotton Comber Noil without duty payment, which led to the generation of excess cotton waste. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand on the waste and imposed penalties, prompting the appellant to appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the cotton waste generated before the manufacture of Absorbent Cotton was not liable to excise duty as it was not an excisable good. They contended that the Commissioner erred in calculating the duty based on incorrect quantities of imported raw material and indigenous cotton. The appellant also claimed exemption under Notification No.6/97 for the period June 2001 to March 2003, citing provisions in the Export Import Policy.

3. Another issue raised was the requirement of permission from the Development Commissioner for selling cotton waste in the Domestic Tariff Area. The appellant asserted that no such permission was necessary during the relevant period, and the Commissioner wrongly interpreted the rules regarding the sale of waste/scrap in India. The appellant argued that even if permission was required, the sale without it should have been condoned due to procedural lapses.

4. Regarding the extended period of limitation for duty demand, the appellant contended that there was no intent to evade payment, as the department was aware of the waste generation and sales activities through various audits. They argued that the demand was time-barred, citing precedents to support their claim. On the other hand, the Revenue maintained that the appellant was not entitled to exemption due to the lack of permission from the Development Commissioner.

In the final decision, the Tribunal found grave inconsistencies in the adjudication and the submissions made by both parties. They noted that crucial aspects, such as the imported raw material quantities and various issues raised by the appellant, were not properly considered. Referring to a relevant judgment, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the original authority for a fresh decision, considering all submissions and addressing the issues raised by the appellant.