1998 (12) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to address submissions regarding Central Excise duty deduction and Modvat credit in the Tribunal's order.
2. Discrepancy in final assessments and provisional assessments under Rule 9B.
3. Challenge to the legality of the Assistant Commissioner's order based on principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

1. The appellant raised concerns about the failure of the Tribunal to address two critical submissions regarding Central Excise duty deduction and Modvat credit in the order. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and agreed that these submissions were not adequately dealt with. Despite the respondent's argument that these points were not raised in the appeal memo, the Tribunal considered them as points of law related to the payment of duty. Given the prolonged nature of the case and the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal directed the appellants to provide evidence to the Assistant Commissioner for a reassessment on these two points to potentially reduce the duty liability.

2. The appellant also contested the final assessments and provisional assessments under Rule 9B, citing discrepancies in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal clarified that provisional assessments under Rule 9B ultimately lead to final assessments, with assessment being the quantification of duty. The refund granted by the Assistant Commissioner only finalized assessments up to a certain period, indicating that assessments beyond that period remained provisional. Consequently, the Tribunal found no need for further rectification concerning the appellant's submissions on this matter.

3. Another issue raised was the challenge to the legality of the Assistant Commissioner's order based on the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the order was passed without observing these principles. However, the Revenue contended that subsequent show cause notices under Section 11A, addressed in other appeals, rendered this challenge irrelevant. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, noting that the issues raised by the appellants had already been addressed in detail in the Tribunal's previous order. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's contentions on this matter, considering them unnecessary given the previous rulings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the various issues raised by the appellants in the Miscellaneous Application, providing detailed explanations and directions where necessary. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the Central Excise duty issues and maintain consistency in the treatment of assessments under Rule 9B, ultimately dismissing the challenge to the Assistant Commissioner's order based on principles of natural justice.