2018 (5) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of duty - quantity of open well pumps - appellants argued that quantity of open well pumps, which were not manufactured by them but got it manufactured from some other manufacturer - Held that - this issue has not been argued by the appellant that these goods were not manufactured by them but got it manufactured at another unit by using their brand name. Therefore, for ascertaining the correctness of the facts, we remand the matter to ascertain that whether these goods are traded or otherwise as claimed - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of submersible pumps; Non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Dispute over duty amount related to alleged manufacture and clearances of open well pumps.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of submersible pumps. During a visit, incriminating documents were found, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice for duty recovery. The demand was confirmed with penalties and interest imposed. The appellants appealed, which were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellants approached the Tribunal, which remanded the matter for a fresh decision considering the deposit made during the investigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, penalties, and interest in a de novo proceeding. The appellants disputed a portion of the duty related to open well pumps, claiming they were not manufactured by them but by another unit. This trading activity issue was not raised before the original adjudicating authority, leading to a lack of documentation to support their claim.

3. The appellants did not contest the duty amount, interest, and penalty already paid but vehemently argued against the duty related to open well pumps. The Tribunal remanded the matter to ascertain whether the open well pumps were traded goods, as claimed by the appellants. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the facts and the undisputed duty amount already paid while deciding the case.

4. In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for further examination and decision on the disputed duty amount related to the alleged manufacture and clearances of open well pumps. The Tribunal emphasized the need to clarify the trading activity issue and consider the facts presented by the appellants in this regard.