1992 (10) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Question of rate of duty, incorrect availment of exemption notification, incompleteness of the Collector's order.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case pertains to the rate of duty and revolves around the incorrect availment of exemption notifications by M/s Saraogi Paper Mills. The Collector of Central Excise, Patna, had held the appellants liable to pay differential duty on kraft paper under Exemption Notification No. 138/86. The appellant argued that the notice issued by the Assistant Collector contained allegations of wrong classification, wrongful availment of exemption, contravention of Central Excise Rules, and duty evasion. The Collector confirmed the duty demanded for most of the period but failed to specify the duty amount in the order, which the appellant contended made the order incomplete. The appellant also raised concerns about the non-severability of the notice covering a period beyond six months. The Departmental Representative supported the Collector's order.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the Collector had considered the appellant's claim for the benefit of Notification 138/86, despite the appellant's contention to the contrary. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument regarding the incompleteness of the Collector's order due to the non-quantification of the duty amount. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of specifying the amount of duty liable to be paid in the notice itself. The Tribunal noted that the Collector should have quantified the demand himself rather than delegating it to subordinate officers.

The Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention regarding the incompleteness of the Collector's order, leading to unnecessary delays and multiple proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a complete order specifying the duty amount confirmed. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding it to the Collector for a de novo decision in line with natural justice. The order was announced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.