2023 (8) TMI 421 - AT - Central Excise

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - finalization of provisional assessment - refund of differential duty - HELD THAT - It is deemed fit and proper to allow the appeal by way of remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority keeping all issues open. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to consider all the issues which have been taken notice by this Tribunal herein above and after hearing the appellant to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the valuation of goods for the levy of excise duty, interest payment on provisional assessments, calculation errors in duty payments, and the demand of duty based on coastal vessel movements.

Valuation of Goods and Excise Duty:
The case involved the Appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in refining and marketing petroleum products. With the withdrawal of warehousing provisions for mineral oil products, the valuation of goods for excise duty became a concern. The Appellant cleared goods through pipeline and coastal shipments to various destinations. The challenge was in determining the exact duty at the time of clearance due to uncertainty in the quantity pumped to different depots through one pipeline.

Interest Payment on Provisional Assessments:
The Appellant sought provisional assessment for the determination of transactional value and excise duty payable. Disputes arose regarding the interest levied on excess duty paid before finalization of assessments. The Appellant relied on legal precedents to argue that interest should not be payable if the differential duty was paid before finalization.

Calculation Errors in Duty Payments:
The Appellant identified calculation errors in duty payments for specific vessels, resulting in excess duty payments. They provided pricing advices applicable for the period and requested a refund of the excess amount paid along with applicable interest. The Appellant acknowledged the errors and expressed commitment to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Demand of Duty Based on Coastal Vessel Movements:
The Respondent's calculation of duty based on losses and gains from coastal vessel movements was challenged by the Appellant. They argued that duty should only be payable on the quantum of goods cleared from the factory, not accounting for additional gains reported by receiving locations. The Appellant sought a refund of the excess duty collected due to this miscalculation.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority, keeping all issues open for reconsideration. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to thoroughly review all aspects highlighted in the appeal and provide a reasoned order in compliance with the law. The Appellant was granted the opportunity to appear before the Adjudicating Authority within 45 days to seek a hearing on the matter.