2019 (9) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Repeated proceedings - Clandestine removal - clearance of goods to job-worker - safety razor blades - parts and components for shaving system - value of goods was arrived at on the basis of cost construction that relied upon the balance sheet for the previous year in the absence of actual cost of clearance ascertained for the year of manufacture with the differential duty, if any, being paid on finalization of the balance sheet of the year. HELD THAT - The show cause notice covers the same period as those issued earlier on finalization of the cost of production, we take note that in re Dee Kay Exports 2010 (10) TMI 473 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana held that once the matter has been finalised on merits, the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in the same matter without a provision to that effect in the Act. The subjecting of an assessee to repeated proceedings under section 11A is not the intent of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Discharge of duty liability as per Central Excise Valuation Rules
- Computation of differential duty based on costs
- Legal challenge to show cause notice
- Applicability of res judicata principle in repeated proceedings

Discharge of Duty Liability:
The appeal involved the clearance of 'safety razor blades' and 'parts and components for shaving systems' to job-workers and their own unit for further processing. The appellant computed duty liability based on the cost of production as per Central Excise Valuation Rules. The cost of production was determined using unaudited balance sheets, with differential duty to be paid upon finalization of audited accounts. The appellant submitted cost details certified by a cost accountant to the Central Excise Commissionerate. Multiple show cause notices were issued for demand of differential duty, with amounts deposited and appropriated in previous orders.

Computation of Differential Duty:
The appellant argued that duty liability should be discharged as per rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The cost of production was revised by the Joint Director (Costs), with the appellant contending that the costs were inflated to sustain the demand. The appellant challenged the legality of the show cause notice, citing previous orders confirming the duty and the revised computation not considered by the adjudicating authority. Legal precedents were cited to support the appellant's position.

Legal Challenge to Show Cause Notice:
The appellant contested the legality of the show cause notice, questioning its validity in light of earlier orders confirming the duty liability. The appellant claimed to have discharged duty based on revised computations, which were allegedly not considered by the authorities. Legal arguments were presented, referring to decisions from the High Court and Tribunal to support the appellant's position.

Applicability of Res Judicata:
The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of the principle of res judicata in the case, citing legal precedents to support its decision. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that subjecting an assessee to repeated proceedings for the same period is not in line with the law. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals based on the principle of res judicata and the intent of the law to prevent multiple proceedings against a party.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals based on the legal principles discussed, including the computation of duty liability, challenges to the show cause notice, and the application of the res judicata principle in preventing repeated proceedings.