2000 (7) TMI 368 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of order-in-appeal No. 113-CE/BPL/2000 dated 24-1-2000.
2. Disallowance of turnover discount, interest on receivables, and expenses on cardboard packing.
3. Jurisdictional concerns regarding the quantification of differential duty and issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
4. Commissioner's authority to pass orders while appeal is pending before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the correctness of the order-in-appeal No. 113-CE/BPL/2000 dated 24-1-2000, which confirmed the order-in-original No. 66/CEx/DEM/AC dated 16-3-98 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Gwalior. The appellant claimed deductions on various grounds, including trade discounts, expenses, and central excise duty, which were disputed by the department.

2. The department disallowed the turnover discount, interest on receivables, and expenses on cardboard packing in the original order dated 17-10-94. The appellant appealed this decision, which is still pending. However, the Range Superintendent quantified a differential duty payable by the appellant. A show cause notice was issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, disregarding the pending appeal, and the demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.

3. The Tribunal found fault with the actions of the authorities in quantifying the duty and issuing a show cause notice under Section 11A while the appeal against the original order was pending. The Commissioner's order was deemed to lack jurisdiction, especially after the Tribunal remitted the matter for de novo disposal, directing the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order-in-appeal No. 113-CE/BPL/2000 dated 24-1-2000 and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to expedite the disposal of the appeal against the original order dated 17-10-94. The appellant had remitted the disputed amount, which would be adjusted based on the outcome of the pending appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely resolution of the appeal within four weeks of its order.

This detailed analysis highlights the procedural irregularities, jurisdictional concerns, and the Tribunal's directions for the expeditious resolution of the pending appeal.