2001 (7) TMI 403 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of duty demand on goods cleared by the appellants.
2. Re-determination of value of clearances for threshold exemption limit.
3. Eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 76/86 for handicraft goods.
4. Lack of evidence on the substantial nature of ornamentation on furniture.
5. Remand of the matter for re-determination by the original authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved a dispute regarding the duty demand on goods cleared by the appellants for the period 1993-94 to 1997-98. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 2,21,017 along with penalties and interest. The appellants contested the value of clearances determined by the Commissioner, arguing that the value should be re-determined under the Small Scale Industries (SSI) Notifications. The Tribunal found merit in this submission and set aside the order for re-determination by the original authority.

2. The issue of re-determination of the value of clearances for the threshold exemption limit was raised by the appellants. They argued that the abatement for arriving at the price in wholesale trade was not considered correctly by the Commissioner. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the value should be determined as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The matter was remanded back for re-determination considering the eligibility under the SSI Notifications.

3. The appellants claimed eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 76/86 for handicraft goods. The Commissioner's order had findings on the substantial nature of ornamentation on the furniture. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence, such as photographs, to support the extent of ornamentation. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter back for re-determination in light of any available evidence to ascertain the extent of ornamentation for determining items eligible for duty exemption under the said notification.

4. The lack of evidence on the substantial nature of ornamentation on the furniture was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of supporting evidence to determine the eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 76/86. Without sufficient evidence, the findings on this aspect were not upheld, leading to a remand for re-determination based on any available evidence.

5. Finally, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication as per law, leaving all issues open for both parties during the remand proceedings. This decision allowed for a fresh examination of the case by the original authority, considering the legal provisions and any additional evidence that may be presented during the re-determination process.