1992 (4) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of duty collection procedure under Section 11A(1) of the Act
2. Interpretation of R.T. 12 assessment under Section 11A of the Act
3. Validity of passing an order on merits not considered by Collector (Appeals)

Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of duty collection procedure under Section 11A(1) of the Act
The Reference Application sought clarification on whether the Department's collection of duty without following the procedure under Section 11A(1) of the Act, specifically by issuing a notice and passing a speaking order, was justified. The Tribunal deemed the Reference Application maintainable as the final order did not pertain to duty rate determination or goods value assessment. It was noted that the Department was merely assessing goods based on an approved classification list, with no dispute over duty rate or notification construction. The Tribunal acknowledged the contention that the RT-12 returns' endorsement was insufficient notice for levy purposes. However, in the unique circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found the demand sustainable due to the High Court's vacation of the Stay Order.

Issue 2: Interpretation of R.T. 12 assessment under Section 11A of the Act
The applicants, soft-drink manufacturers, challenged the withdrawal of MODVAT on their products under Notification No. 203/87, leading to a demand for differential duty. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the demand, citing compliance with the High Court's order. The Tribunal referenced a decision of the Madras High Court and distinguished a Supreme Court ruling, supporting the applicants' position. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue revolved around the constitutionality of the notification rather than duty rate disputes.

Issue 3: Validity of passing an order on merits not considered by Collector (Appeals)
The Tribunal addressed the concern of passing an order on merits that was not initially considered by the Collector (Appeals), potentially constituting an original order. The Tribunal decided to refer the remaining question of law, involving the interpretation of Section 11A(1), to the High Court for resolution. As a result, the cross-reference filed by the Department was dismissed, and the Reference Application was allowed for further consideration by the High Court.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the procedural and substantive aspects of duty collection, assessment interpretations, and the validity of passing orders on unconsidered merits, providing a detailed analysis of the legal issues raised by the Reference Application in the context of the Central Excise Tariff Act and relevant case law.