1999 (9) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on carbon dioxide vented into the atmosphere
2. Duty demand on aerated water cleared without payment
3. Duty demand on Modvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing beverage

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty on Carbon Dioxide
The department issued a notice demanding duty on carbon dioxide vented into the atmosphere by the appellant. The Commissioner confirmed the duty payable on this count. The appellant argued that the duty confirmed exceeded the amount specified in the notice, contrary to Section 11(A) of the Act. The Departmental Representative claimed that the error in the duty demanded did not prejudice the appellant. However, Section 11A limits the duty confirmed to the amount specified in the notice to prevent unfairness. The Tribunal held that the duty confirmed should not exceed the notice amount to uphold principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Duty on Aerated Water
Another duty demand was for aerated water cleared without payment. The Commissioner confirmed a higher duty amount than in the notice. The appellant contended that this contravened Section 11A, which limits the confirmed duty to the notice amount. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the appellant should be aware of the maximum financial liability from the notice itself. As the duty confirmed exceeded the notice amount, the Tribunal found a violation of Section 11A.

Issue 3: Duty on Modvat Credit
Regarding the duty demand on Modvat credit for inputs used in making a beverage, the Commissioner found in favor of the appellant. However, due to discrepancies in the duty demands and confirmations, the Tribunal decided to adjudicate the matter afresh. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to raise new evidence and arguments on specific issues, ensuring a fair hearing before the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to Section 11A to prevent unfair demands exceeding those specified in the notice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication, providing both parties with an opportunity to present their case effectively.