9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (9) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) modifying original authority's order. 2. Contention regarding provisional assessment and evidence supporting it. 3. Validity of corrigendum issued by Superintendent of Central Excise. 4. Consideration of evidence by Collector (Appeals) in reaching the decision. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, which modified the original authority's order and limited the demand against the respondent to a specific amount. The Department contended that the assessment was provisional, but the Collector (Appeals) did not find supporting evidence for this claim, leading to the appeal. 2. The Department argued that the Collector (Appeals) did not consider any evidence before concluding that the assessment was not provisional. The Assistant Collector had indicated provisional approval for the classification list, but the Collector (Appeals) did not address this evidence. The lack of evidence consideration led to the decision being unsustainable in law, necessitating a remand for further review. 3. The respondents' counsel emphasized that the original demand for differential duty was reduced through a corrigendum issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The counsel argued that without a fresh show cause notice, the corrigendum limiting the demand was valid. The absence of any mention of provisional assessment in the show cause notice further supported the contention that the demand was correctly restricted. 4. The Tribunal observed that the Collector (Appeals) did not adequately analyze the evidence, such as the classification list and Departmental records, before reaching a decision. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed the Collector (Appeals) to provide a detailed, evidence-based decision after hearing both parties, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.
|
