2019 (4) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Valuation - removal of inputs as such - Windshieldd - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that - The fact of the appellant having manufactured the goods for SGSIL under Notification No. 214/86 was evidently not brought to the knowledge of the adjudicating authority at any stage, at the same time, these facts had been informed by the appellant to the jurisdictional central excise officers earlier to the adjudication. In the circumstances, there is a case for remanding the matter so as to give the appellant one more opportunity to explain the matter before the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Central Excise duty liability on manufacturing and clearance of windshields, duty payment on service charges, imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC, suppression of facts, duty payment for job work charges, remand for further adjudication.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the Central Excise duty liability concerning the manufacturing and clearance of windshields by the appellants to their sister unit. The appellants had raised invoices on the sister unit for inputs but had not paid duty on the service charges collected. The duty demand was proposed based on the cost of production of windshields as per Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. A show-cause notice (SCN) was issued, proposing duty demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11 AC. A corrigendum to the SCN was also issued, altering the duty liability and confirming the duty demand with interest and penalty. The appeal challenged these demands and penalties.

The appellant's advocate argued that the appellants were only doing job work for the sister unit under Notification No. 214/86, which had been communicated to the Central Excise officers earlier. The advocate highlighted various letters and submissions made by the appellants regarding the nature of the transactions and duty payments for job work charges. It was contended that duty had already been paid by the sister unit for the windshields, and hence, demanding duty from the appellants again was unjustified.

The advocate further submitted that the duty demand was beyond the normal period and should be considered time-barred. It was emphasized that there was no intention to evade duty, and the demand, as per the SCN and corrigendum, was unsustainable. The advocate requested a remand to produce necessary evidence supporting the appellant's arguments before the adjudicating authority, as the facts regarding job work under Notification No. 214/86 were not highlighted during the adjudication process.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found merit in remanding the matter for further adjudication. It was observed that crucial information regarding job work under Notification No. 214/86 was not presented to the adjudicating authority during the initial proceedings, despite being communicated to the Central Excise officers earlier. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered a remand to give the appellants an opportunity to explain the matter and provide necessary documents and evidence to support their contentions. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for re-adjudication by the adjudicating authority.