1997 (5) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against Order-in-Original dated 8-2-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore.
- Allegations of suppressing real value of plywood in price lists and collecting differential value as handling and service charges.
- Dispute regarding the nature of charges collected under debit notes from local dealers.
- Imposition of penalty by the Collector and challenge against the same.
- Sufficiency of evidence and materials in the show cause notice to support the allegations.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi was directed against the Order-in-Original dated 8-2-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. The dispute stemmed from allegations that the appellant, engaged in plywood manufacturing, had suppressed the real value of plywood in price lists and collected differential value as handling and service charges. The appellant claimed that the charges collected from local dealers under debit notes were for post-manufacturing and post-clearance services, unrelated to the assessable value of the plywood cleared from the factory.

The Collector of Central Excise overruled the appellant's contentions, confirming the demand of duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the show cause notice lacked materials to support the conclusion that the charges were part of the plywood price. The appellant contended that the materials relied upon by the Collector were not presented in the show cause notice, denying the appellant an opportunity to rebut them. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside the order of the Income Tax Officer, whose findings were referenced in the Collector's decision.

The Appellate Tribunal found a total absence of reference to materials in the show cause notice and noted that the materials relied upon in the impugned order were not presented to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the sufficiency of evidence presented by the appellant would only be relevant if there were materials supporting the case outlined in the show cause notice. As the necessary materials were lacking, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's failure to produce additional evidence did not aid the department's case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the inadequacy of materials in the show cause notice to support the allegations made against the appellant.