1993 (7) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against duty and penalty levied under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Allegation of suppression against the appellant for availing Notification 23/89.
3. Failure of adjudicating authority to consider evidence on record.
4. Interpretation of Notification regarding benefit availability for cement manufactured from clinker purchased outside.
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation and non-filing of classification list.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case challenges the duty and penalty imposed under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellant, engaged in cement manufacturing from clinker purchased externally, availed benefits under Notification 23/89. The appellant was accused of suppression for this availing, leading to the initiation of proceedings. The appellant contended that the Department was aware of the clinker purchase, as evidenced by statutory records and monthly statements submitted. However, the adjudicating authority failed to consider this evidence, leading to an unsustainable order.

Regarding the interpretation of the Notification, the Department argued that benefits were not applicable to cement manufactured from externally purchased clinker unless a classification list was filed. The appellant, on the other hand, asserted compliance with procedures and proper documentation. The appellant's reply to the show cause notice highlighted the Department's awareness of their operations and the absence of suppression. Despite this, the adjudicating authority did not address the evidence provided, leading to a flawed decision.

The issue of extended limitation period arose, with the Department contending that the appellant failed to declare the use of externally purchased clinker for cement manufacturing, violating Rule 173B. The appellant argued that indirect disclosure and compliance with Chapter X procedures should negate the invocation of extended limitation. The failure to consider the appellant's evidence and the lack of specific allegations of suppression led the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and remand the case for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order lacking in proper consideration of evidence and legal aspects. The case highlights the importance of due process and the need for adjudicating authorities to thoroughly assess all relevant information before making determinations on duty and penalty matters under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.