2024 (2) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - Extended period of limitation - paid excess duty for a few quarters - paid less amounts for a few quarters - no proposals in the show cause notice for recalculation - HELD THAT - On regular basis the provisional assessments were finalized and the finalization of provisional assessments were adjudication orders passed by Assistant or Deputy Commissioner. If Revenue was aggrieved by the said orders, the course of action provided by law for Revenue was to prefer appeal against such finalization orders before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After the limitation period for filing of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is over, then such assessments orders become final in law and cannot be reopened. In the present case, learned original authority has reopened such assessment beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Further, learned original authority in this case also did not have jurisdiction to reopen such assessments for the reasons that the proper authority to reopen assessment made by Assistant or Deputy Commissioner under Central Excise law is Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the finalization of provisional assessments, the validity of demands raised by the original authority, and the jurisdiction to reopen assessments beyond the period of limitation.

Finalization of Provisional Assessments:
The appellant had two manufacturing units and was required to pay central excise duty by determining the value of goods as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellant submitted cost data for finalization of provisional assessments, and the assessments were regularly being finalized by the Assistant or Deputy Commissioners. The appellant raised concerns that the orders finalizing the provisional assessments were never reviewed by the department. The Tribunal noted that if Revenue was dissatisfied with these orders, the proper course of action was to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the original authority reopened assessments beyond the limitation period and lacked jurisdiction to do so, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal held that both the show cause notices were also not sustainable for the same reason.

Validity of Demands Raised:
The original authority confirmed demands against the appellant based on arithmetical mistakes in cost certificates submitted. The appellant argued that the original authority only considered quarters where less amounts were paid, failing to account for quarters where excess duty was paid. The Tribunal found that the demands confirmed by the original authority exceeded the scope of the show cause notices, rendering them invalid. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were not sustainable due to the original authority's lack of jurisdiction to reopen assessments made by Assistant or Deputy Commissioners.

Jurisdiction to Reopen Assessments:
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders, which sought to reopen assessments beyond the limitation period, were not sustainable. It was emphasized that the proper authority to reopen assessments made by Assistant or Deputy Commissioners under Central Excise law is the Commissioner (Appeals). As the original authority did not have the jurisdiction to reopen assessments in this case, the impugned orders and show cause notices were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals.