2018 (10) TMI 1250 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of duty - matter pending before Tribunal - process amounting to manufacture or not? - Held that - We take note of the pendency of a matter remanded by the Tribunal with direction to the lower authorities to decide on the dutiability of the goods made by the appellant which would effectively decide the dispute impugned before us now. And as the earlier decision on taxability had been remanded by us, it would be appropriate for us to have this matter also placed before the first appellate authority to take a decision in congruity with the dispute on de-registration pending before him - the first appellate authority is directed to decide both matters together - impugned order set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved: Leviability of duty on transactions for 2001-02 and 2002-03, validity of recovery order under Central Excise Act, 1944, dispute over taxability of appellant's activities, appeal against de-registration, and the decision-making process of the first appellate authority.

Leviability of Duty on Transactions: The appeal by M/s Almech Enterprises challenged the order-in-appeal upholding the recovery of &8377; 14,80,984 under sections 11A, 11AB, and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant was involved in cutting and affixing materials for customers, initially registered under the Act but later moved for de-registration. A show cause notice for recovery was issued in 2006, leading to the impugned order confirming the demand.

Appeal Against De-Registration: The appellant's appeal for de-registration was initially allowed by the first appellate authority, but the Revenue appealed against this decision. The Tribunal directed a fresh decision after issuing a show cause notice. The dispute over de-registration was pending with the first appellate authority, creating a parallel issue alongside the duty recovery dispute.

Taxability of Appellant's Activities: The appellant argued that their activities did not amount to manufacturing, contrary to the impugned order. They contended that the order was premature, especially with an appeal pending against the first appellate authority's decision on taxability. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order based on this argument.

Decision-Making Process of First Appellate Authority: The impugned order was challenged for being inconsistent with the first appellate authority's decision on taxability without any contrary decision or stay. The appellant argued that the first appellate authority should have refrained from a hasty decision, especially with the appeal pending. The Tribunal noted the pendency of the matter remanded by them and directed the first appellate authority to decide both the duty recovery and de-registration matters together for congruity.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the first appellate authority to decide both matters together, considering the remanded issue and the pending dispute over de-registration. The decision aimed to ensure coherence in resolving the disputes related to duty recovery and taxability of the appellant's activities.