1999 (9) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty, penalty, and redemption fine imposed on the appellants.
2. Determination of correct assessable value of clearances made by the appellants.
3. Invocation of extended period under Proviso to Section 11A.
4. Mutuality of interest between the appellants and M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd.
5. Consideration of evidence regarding sales to independent wholesale dealers.
6. Allegations of suppression of information by the appellants.
7. Adequacy of the Order-in-Original and the need for reconsideration.

Analysis:
1. The Order-in-Original confirmed duty, penalty, and redemption fine on the appellants. The main issue was the determination of the correct assessable value of clearances made by the appellants. The Order upheld the extended period under Proviso to Section 11A, leading to the imposition of penalties.

2. The appellants argued that the assessable value should be based on the price at which M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. sold goods as they were the holding company of the appellants. The penalty on Shri Simon George was imposed for not declaring the correct assessable value. The appellants contended that the relationship did not create mutuality of interest as claimed by the Commissioner.

3. The appellants highlighted that about 20% of their production was sold to independent buyers, which was not considered in the Order-in-Original. They cited relevant case laws to support their contention that the assessable value should have been determined differently.

4. The appellants argued against the invocation of the extended period, stating that they had not suppressed any relevant information. They provided evidence of communications with the Range Superintendent dating back to 1991, showing that the relationship with M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. and pricing structure had been disclosed to the department.

5. The Tribunal found the Order-in-Original to be non-speaking as it did not adequately address the submissions made by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the need for detailed consideration of the evidence regarding sales to independent wholesale dealers and the lack of justification for invoking the extended period based on alleged suppression.

6. Considering the above, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration. The Commissioner was instructed to allow the appellants to present their case, consider all submissions and case laws, and pass a speaking order addressing the issues raised.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further consideration.