1998 (7) TMI 265 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Determination of assessable value of bushes supplied free of cost.
3. Allegations of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty.
4. Imposition of penalty.
5. Calculation of central excise duty on the basis of assessable value.

Issue 1: Stay Applications under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
In the hearing of stay applications, both parties suggested remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for re-determination of the correct amount of differential duty due. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded with the appeals.

Issue 2: Determination of Assessable Value of Bushes:
During the period in dispute, the appellant was manufacturing products and receiving free bushes from MUL. The central issue was the inclusion of the cost of these bushes in the assessable value for calculating central excise duty. The appellant contested the calculation made by the Commissioner, arguing that the method used for determining the assessable value was flawed.

Issue 3: Allegations of Suppression and Penalty Imposition:
Show cause notices were issued alleging suppression of material facts to evade duty. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for differential duty and imposed a penalty. The appellant disputed the notices on various grounds, including quantification and limitation, which were overruled by the Commissioner.

Issue 4: Central Excise Duty Calculation:
The appellant challenged the method of calculating the central excise duty, specifically questioning the uniform exchange rate adopted by the Commissioner and the inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value. The appellant also raised concerns about the exemption from customs duty and countervailing duty enjoyed by MUL.

Issue 5: Tribunal's Decision and Remand:
Considering the lack of information provided to the appellant earlier regarding the basis for determining the assessable value, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Adjudicating Authority. The Authority was directed to re-determine the assessable value of bushes and central excise duty, taking into account all contentions raised by the appellant. The Authority was also tasked with verifying the duty amount paid by the appellant and deciding on the imposition of penalty.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a thorough re-determination of the assessable value, central excise duty, and penalty considerations, ensuring all contentions are adequately addressed and verified.