9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Duty payment on single yarn vs. double yarn. 2. Dispute over duty assessment on single yarn used in manufacturing double yarn. 3. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT) regarding excise duty liability. 4. Questions arising from Tribunal's order on duty adjustment between subsequent and intermediate products. Analysis: 1. The case involved an application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding duty payment on single yarn versus double yarn. The dispute arose as the revenue contended that duty should be paid on single yarn, not on double yarn, even though the assessee had paid duty on the latter. The Additional Commissioner of Excise assessed duty on single yarn not previously subjected to duty, leading to a demand on the assessee. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) later recalculated the demand based on waste percentage and remanded certain appeals for fresh assessment. However, the demand in one appeal was affirmed. Subsequently, the revenue appealed before CEGAT, which held that duty should be based on actual production and clearance, not hypothetical quantities. CEGAT remanded the case to determine the correct duty payable on the single yarn actually produced by the appellant. 3. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that since no tax was payable on double yarn and duty was already paid on it, the amount paid should be adjusted against the duty on single yarn. The revenue sought a reference on the permissibility of adjusting duty paid on subsequent products against duty payable on intermediate products. The Tribunal's order did not support the revenue's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the reference. 4. The High Court noted that the questions raised by the revenue did not arise from the Tribunal's order. It emphasized the importance of determining the correct duty at the appropriate stage and adjusting payments accordingly. The Court clarified that any duty paid by the assessee should be adjusted against the final liability, without any reverse adjustment. The decision highlighted the significance of redetermining duty payable by adjusting payments made at the correct stage. Consequently, the reference was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
