2018 (2) TMI 379 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - abatement - whether appellants are eligible for abatement on prorota basis during the period of non-functioning of the furnaces? Held that - the claim of the assessee for pro-rata basis is to be allowed, which we hereby do - the demand of interest as well as imposition of penalties is unsustainable. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Eligibility for abatement on pro-rata basis during non-functioning of furnaces.
- Interpretation of rules regarding duty payment based on Annual Capacity of Production.
- Validity of demands on interest and penalties.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Chamundi Steel Castings seeking re-determination of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) and abatement during periods of furnace breakdowns. The department denied abatement, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner upheld the demands, prompting appeals from both parties. The core issue was the eligibility of the appellants for abatement on a pro-rata basis during furnace non-functioning.

In a previous case, the Hon'ble High Court had ruled in favor of abatement on a pro-rata basis, setting a precedent for the current situation. The High Court's observations emphasized the calculation of duty on a pro-rata basis when there are changes in furnace capacity. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the department's appeal and allowed the assessee's claim for abatement on a pro-rata basis for the period after 31.12.1998. This decision was influenced by the judgment in the case of M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills, which deemed demands for interest and penalties unsustainable.

The Tribunal's ruling was based on the principle of consistency with the High Court's decision and the application of rules regarding duty payment. The appeals were partly allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to apply the view of the High Court on the pro-rata basis claim of abatement. The demands for interest and penalties were set aside, aligning with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a related case.