1995 (9) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of duty paying documents by the Collector.
2. Time-barred demand and maintainability of the demand.
3. Recall and modification of the Tribunal's order.
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 208/83-C.E.
5. Remand for examination of maintainability of the demand.

Analysis:
The ROM application was filed against the Final Order of the Tribunal, challenging the failure to consider duty paying documents and the issue of time-barred and maintainable demand. The Counsel argued that the demand was time-barred and not maintainable, emphasizing that the Collector did not effectively consider their plea. The ROM application requested the order to be recalled and modified or directions given for re-examination. The SDR for the Revenue agreed with the period involved. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, recalled a paragraph of the Final Order and referred to a previous case regarding ship building scrap and the interpretation of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. The Tribunal observed that the Collector did not consider duty paying documents and remanded the case to examine the maintainability of the demand for the specified period, allowing the appellants to be heard.

The Tribunal referred to a case involving M.S. round bars manufactured from re-rollable scrap supplied by ship breaking units, discussing the applicability of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. The dispute centered on whether the inputs were duty paid as required by the Notification. The Tribunal found that the inputs supplied by the ship breaking units were not duty paid, making the Notification inapplicable to the M.S. round bars. The Tribunal emphasized the need for specific findings on duty payment documents and the consideration of contentions raised in the show cause notice reply. The case was remanded to the Collector for a detailed examination of the issues and a determination of the demand's maintainability based on the evidence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the ROM application, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of duty payment documents and the maintainability of the demand. The case was remanded for further proceedings to ensure a fair consideration of the issues raised by the appellants regarding duty payment and the time-barred nature of the demand.