2019 (5) TMI 1225 - AT - Central Excise

Captive consumption - benefit of N/N. 67/95 of the Central Excise - manufacture of Toolings which have been captively used for manufacture of final product and invoice was raised for the same - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating authority as well as the learned Commissioner (Appeal) have not applied their mind and perused the records and pass the order in routine manner. As we have found from the record that appellant are not manufacturer of the tooling in question therefore, question of payment of duty does not arise - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand confirmed under Notification No. 67/95 of Central Excise for manufacturing Toolings.
- Dispute regarding the appellant's manufacturing of Tooling during the impugned period.
- Allegation of the Adjudicating Authority passing orders without proper application of mind.
- Failure of the authorities below to examine the facts of the case judiciously.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the demand confirmed under Notification No. 67/95 of Central Excise, arguing that they did not manufacture Tooling during the impugned period. The Revenue contended that the appellant raised invoices for Tooling, indicating captive usage, thus disqualifying them from the benefit of the notification. The Adjudicating Authority's order was challenged for factual inaccuracies, emphasizing that the appellant did not manufacture Tooling during the period in question, as evidenced by the purchase of Tooling invoices from another entity. The Tribunal noted the Adjudicating Authority's failure to apply proper scrutiny and accused them of mechanical decision-making without due consideration, cautioning against such practices in the future. Similarly, the Commissioner (Appeal) was criticized for not examining the case facts judiciously. Ultimately, upon establishing that the appellant was not the manufacturer of the Tooling in question, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and granting consequential benefits.

This judgment highlights the importance of thorough examination and judicial application of mind by adjudicating authorities to ensure fair and accurate decisions. It underscores the necessity for a meticulous review of facts and legal provisions before passing orders, warning against routine or mechanical decision-making processes. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of upholding procedural integrity and ensuring that judgments are based on a comprehensive understanding of the case specifics and relevant legal frameworks.