1997 (7) TMI 418 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of manufacturing articles without payment of duty and filing classification lists.
2. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 162/86.
3. Appeal against the order confirming duty, penalty, and confiscation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, who were manufacturing special purpose motor vehicles and were alleged to have manufactured articles without paying duty and filing classification lists. The show cause notice issued to them claimed that certain articles used in the manufacture of vehicles were not declared for duty payment. The Collector confirmed duty liability on certain components and held that the benefit of specific notifications was wrongly availed by the assessee. The appeal challenged this order.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that most of the items alleged to have been manufactured were actually purchased from the market and sold to customers. He contended that the Collector did not consider this argument and wrongly assumed manufacturing by the assessee. The advocate also disputed the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 162/86, stating that goods purchased should be deemed duty paid, and the notification should apply even if components were bought from the market.

3. Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the Collector had not adequately addressed the appellant's claim of purchasing goods instead of manufacturing them. It was noted that further examination of documents was necessary to verify this claim. The Tribunal agreed that the case needed to be remanded on this point. Regarding the denial of the notification benefit, the Tribunal did not express a final opinion but directed the Collector to reconsider this aspect in the fresh proceedings. The Collector was instructed to allow submissions from the assessee before making a well-reasoned decision on duty, penalty, and confiscation.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for the Collector to reexamine the evidence, particularly regarding the alleged manufacturing of articles and the denial of the notification benefit. The Collector was directed to conduct a de novo hearing, consider all submissions, and issue a reasoned order on the matter.