Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 958 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - demand on the ground that SCN dated 11/03/2010 for demand of duty of the matching amount is pending for adjudication - Held that - the rejection of refund claim without adjudicating the show cause notice dated 11/03/2010 is bad and against the provisions of natural Justice. The same also causes harassment to the assessee - the matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the show cause notice as well as the refund claim together, if not yet decided - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Whether the appellant was liable to pay duty on clearance of waste and scrap. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of Audio Cassettes, CD, and CDR, generated waste and scrap falling under Chapter Heading 3915 of CETA during the manufacturing process. The Revenue alleged that the appellant cleared waste and scrap without duty post the enactment of Budget 2008-09, which amended the definition of excisable goods. The amended clause D in Section 2 of the Central Excise Act broadened the definition to include goods capable of being bought and sold for a consideration, deeming them marketable. Circular No. 904/24/09-CX clarified that waste and scrap meeting the amended definition were excisable goods chargeable to excise duty. Despite exporting waste and scrap to Hong Kong, the appellant paid duty under protest but filed a refund claim. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim pending adjudication of a show cause notice demanding duty on the waste and scrap. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection. The appellant's absence led to the ex parte disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that rejecting the refund claim without adjudicating the show cause notice violated natural justice and caused harassment to the assessee. Citing the case law of Hindalco Industries confirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized that no tax was payable on waste products like dross and skimming despite the 2008 amendment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide both the show cause notice and the refund claim together if not yet decided, considering the legal precedent. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need to consider the legal precedent regarding the taxability of waste products despite the statutory amendment in 2008.
|