2000 (11) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Central Excise duty liability on goods received for re-processing and re-conditioning u/s Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Summary:
The appellant, a company manufacturing chemicals, received "Tonner" for purification without payment of duty, leading to a show cause notice alleging non-clearance of goods after payment of duty. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the duty, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal.

Shri Patel argued that the notice did not mention the repair activity exceeding one year, thus exceeding the show cause notice's scope. However, Shri Jain contended that the notice specified a violation of Rule 173Q and non-compliance with Central Excise Act procedures.

Upon review, the Dy. Commissioner found the goods received for re-processing exceeded the one-year limit, contrary to Rule 173H provisions. The discrepancy between the notice and the order was noted, with the order extending beyond the notice's allegations. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

This judgment clarifies the importance of aligning the charges in a show cause notice with subsequent orders to ensure fairness and adherence to procedural requirements in excise duty cases.