1997 (6) TMI 128 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Liability to pay duty on clearances made during 1987-88 under Notification No. 175/86.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, confirming duty demand, imposing penalties, and confiscating a machine. The appellant, a manufacturer, disputed the duty demand of Rs. 6,28,241.76 for clearances made during 1987-88, claiming entitlement to an exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Department contended that the value of clearances exceeded the threshold due to the inclusion of the value of a machine not declared by the appellant. Personal penalties were imposed on employees as well.

2. The dispute revolved around the appellant's claim that the value of previous year's clearances was below the exemption limit of Rs. 1.5 crores. The Department alleged that the value did not consider a machine's value sold by the appellant, which would breach the exemption threshold. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the impugned order. The appellant argued that certain expenses should be deducted from the declared value, bringing it below the threshold.

3. The appellant contended that the declared value included additional costs that, if deducted, would render the clearances within the exemption limit. A Chartered Accountant's certificate supported this claim, but the Collector rejected it, citing lack of supporting materials. The appellant argued that all relevant documents were seized by the Department, and if requested, they could have provided proof. The appellant later produced some documents to support their claim.

4. The appellant criticized the Collector for not requesting supporting documents before rejecting the Chartered Accountant's certificate. They argued that all figures could be substantiated by available accounts and documents. The Tribunal found fault with the Collector for not giving the appellant an opportunity to produce the necessary documents and decided to remand the case for the appellant to submit the documents in their custody and list those with the Department.

5. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after allowing the appellant to produce supporting documents and have a personal hearing. The decision highlighted the Collector's failure to request documents before rejecting the appellant's contentions, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to present evidence. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.