2023 (3) TMI 1006 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of Central Excise duty under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AA - levy of penalty under Section 11AC - non-payment of an amount equal to 6% under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 of the value of exempted goods/ non-excisable goods - SCN is vague and not clear - HELD THAT - Neither the original authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has understood what the demand in the show cause notice was for. In view of the above, it is found that these are fit cases to be remanded to the Original Authority to decide the matter afresh strictly within the scope of show cause notice. Needless to say, even if demand can be made beyond the show cause notice, the order-in-original cannot go beyond the show cause notice. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the demand of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty on the appellant as per the show cause notices issued u/s 11A(4), 11AA, and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Background and Appeal Details:
Two appeals were filed by the appellant challenging the Orders-in-Appeal which upheld the Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appeals were related to the recovery of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty.

2. Show Cause Notices:
The show cause notices called upon the appellant to justify why Central Excise duty should not be recovered u/s 11A(4), along with interest u/s 11AA, and why penalty should not be imposed u/s 11AC. The notices specified the amounts and the provisions under which the demand was made.

3. Misinterpretation of Show Cause Notices:
The Orders-in-Original proceeded on the presumption that the show cause notices were demanding reversal of an amount under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in relation to fly ash cleared from the factory. However, the final confirmation in the order was of duty under Section 11A(4) along with interest under Section 11AA and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

4. Errors in Commissioner's Decision:
The Commissioner (Appeals) misunderstood the nature of the demand in the show cause notice, leading to confusion regarding the applicable provisions. The penalty was wrongly stated to be imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CCR, 2004, instead of Section 11AC as mentioned in the order-in-original.

5. Remand to Original Authority:
Considering the misinterpretations and errors in understanding the demands in the show cause notices, both appeals were allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority for a fresh decision strictly within the scope of the show cause notices. The judgment emphasized that the order-in-original cannot exceed the scope of the show cause notice.

In conclusion, the appeals were remanded for a fresh decision by the Original Authority to ensure a proper adjudication based on the actual demands specified in the show cause notices.