2018 (8) TMI 1000 - AT - Central Excise

Re-quantification of demand for the normal period after adjusting 8% amount paid by the appellant in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - At the time of passing the de novo order the appellant could not submit the correct data as regard payment of 8%. In this regard they obtained a certificate from the superintendent which is after the passing of the order. Therefore, the Commissioner had no occasion to deal with the said data. The matter should be reconsidered by the Ld. Commissioner by taking into account that certificate issued by the Range Superintendent - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
De novo adjudication passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, quantification of 8% amount paid by the appellant, imposition of penalties, adjustment of duty liability against amounts paid under Rule 57cc, consideration of certificate from range superintendent, re-quantification of demand for the normal period.

Analysis:

The appeal in this case is against the de novo adjudication passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. The limited issue before the Tribunal is to re-quantify the demand for the normal period after adjusting the 8% amount paid by the appellant in accordance with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argues that they have obtained certification from the range superintendent regarding the 8% amount paid by them, contending that the adjudicating authority's order is not legal and proper. The Tribunal had previously held that there was no justification for penalties, yet the adjudicating authority imposed penalties beyond the Tribunal's direction.

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon careful consideration of both sides' submissions, the Tribunal referred to its earlier remand order, which directed the original authority to quantify the demand for a specific period by adjusting the 8% amount already paid by the appellants. However, at the time of passing the de novo order, the appellant did not provide the correct data regarding the payment of 8%, obtaining a certificate from the superintendent only after the order was issued. Consequently, the Commissioner did not have the opportunity to consider this new data. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the matter should be reconsidered by the Commissioner, taking into account the certificate issued by the Range Superintendent. It was emphasized that no penalty should be imposed on the manufacturer, and the duty demand should be limited to the normal period. As a result, the appeal of one individual was allowed, and the appeal of a company was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further consideration.

In conclusion, the judgment focuses on the re-quantification of demand for the normal period after adjusting the 8% amount paid by the appellant, the imposition of penalties beyond the Tribunal's direction, and the importance of considering the certificate from the range superintendent in the adjudication process.