2004 (8) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Excisability and duty liability of products namely Meat, Tallow/Tallow Waste, Bone and Soft, St. and Int/Head and Hooves/Brain/Neck, Hides manufactured by the appellant.

Analysis:

1. Excisability and Duty Liability:
The appeal pertains to the excisability and duty liability of various products manufactured by the appellant. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand against the appellants for a specific period, denying them the benefit of a particular notification and applying a subsequent notification instead. The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of fresh and frozen meat, also produces by-products classified under different chapter headings. The appellants did not contest the excisability of these by-products before the adjudicating authority. Upon clearing these by-products in the DTA without duty payment, a duty demand was raised. The appellants deposited a certain amount voluntarily upon realizing their error. The Tribunal held that the appellants, having not disputed the excisability before the adjudicating authority, were legally stopped from contesting it during the appeal.

2. Benefit of Notification No. 8/97:
The main contention raised by the appellants was the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 8/97, which exempts certain products from excise duty. The Tribunal analyzed the proviso added to this notification through a subsequent notification and concluded that the benefit could only be denied in respect of finished products and not other by-products like Tallow Waste and Bone Waste. Therefore, the impugned order confirming duty was modified accordingly. The Tribunal also noted that the statutory deduction treating price as cum duty price had not been allowed to the appellants and directed for its allowance.

3. Confirmation of Duty Amount:
The Tribunal addressed the argument that the confirmation of a specific duty amount was illegal as it was not raised in the show cause notice. It was clarified that the duty amount in question was voluntarily deposited by the appellants before the show cause notice was issued. The adjudicating authority merely confirmed this voluntary payment, and no new duty was imposed. Therefore, the impugned order in this regard was deemed lawful.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order regarding the confirmation of duty for Tallow Waste and Bone Waste by allowing the benefit of Notification No. 8/97. For other products, the duty confirmation was upheld, with a direction to re-quantify the duty amount by treating the price as cum duty price. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.