1997 (2) TMI 342 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 175/86.
2. Confirmation of duty demand for March 1986.
3. Overlapping period of demand.
4. Quantification of duty by Assistant Commissioner.
5. Classification of Bleached Cotton.
6. Remission of duty on burnt goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 175/86:
The Commissioner denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 on two grounds: the products manufactured by the appellant were not listed in the Registration Certificate and the appellant did not submit returns to the S.S.I. Authorities. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's reliance on the judgment in Manko Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, holding that the Registration Certificate itself suffices for the benefit under the Notification. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deny the benefit based on non-submission of returns, as this was a matter for the S.S.I. Authorities.

2. Confirmation of duty demand for March 1986:
The appellant argued that the demand for March 1986 should be excluded since the Commissioner confirmed the demand for the period from April 1986 to November 1986. The Tribunal agreed that this issue warranted a remand for reconsideration, as the reasons provided by the SDR regarding the previous Notification subsisting for March were not sufficient.

3. Overlapping period of demand:
The appellant pointed out an overlapping period in the demands: the first demand covered March 1986 to November 1986, and the second covered November 1986 to February 1987. The Tribunal agreed that the overlapping period was not clearly segregated in the orders and required clarification on the exact dates for the demand in November 1986. This issue was also remanded for further examination.

4. Quantification of duty by Assistant Commissioner:
The Tribunal found it illegal for the Commissioner to delegate the quantification of duty to the Assistant Commissioner, citing precedents from L.M.L. v. C.C.Ex. and District Construction Ltd. v. C.C.Ex. The Tribunal held that the impugned order regarding the second seizure should be set aside and remanded for proper adjudication by the Commissioner.

5. Classification of Bleached Cotton:
The appellant contested the classification of Bleached Cotton under Chapter 30 instead of Chapter 52. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner provided no technical reasons for this classification and did not address the appellant's arguments. This issue was remanded for a proper finding on the correct classification.

6. Remission of duty on burnt goods:
The appellant sought remission of duty on goods seized and later destroyed by fire. The Tribunal found no legal provision for remission by a quasi-judicial authority but suggested that an ex gratia remission might be considered by the competent authority. The Tribunal did not issue a directive on this point but left it open for consideration by the Commissioner or another competent authority.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the matters for readjudication, directing the Adjudicating Authority to reassess the correct liability of duty, confiscation of goods, and the quantum of penalty in light of the observations made. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for de novo proceedings.

← Previous Next →