2000 (5) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in demanding a differential duty without issuing a show-cause notice.
2. Dispute regarding the eligibility of PME deductions from Depot sale prices.
3. Pending approval of certain price lists affecting finalization of assessments and demands.

Issue 1 - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the final assessment and duty demands without issuing a show-cause notice for the demanded differential duty. The appellant contended that this violated principles of natural justice. However, the EA-4 application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs argued that no show-cause notice was necessary for quantifying duty based on approved price lists. The Tribunal found that the appellants' non-attendance at hearings led to the denial of deductions and decided that a re-examination was needed. The appeal was allowed for de novo adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner.

Issue 2 - Eligibility of PME Deductions:
The Commissioner (Appeals) denied PME deductions from Depot sale prices, stating that the assessments were finalized based on approved price lists and classification lists. The appellant argued that factory gate prices were available, but the documents supporting this were not considered. The Tribunal observed that the deductions claimed were not examined properly, and the denial of deductions was based on the appellants' non-attendance at hearings. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for re-examination, emphasizing the need to consider documents supporting eligible deductions from Depot prices.

Issue 3 - Pending Approval of Price Lists:
The pending approval of certain price lists affected the finalization of assessments and demands. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded four price lists as provisional until finalized. The Tribunal noted that the assessments and demands were based on approved price lists and classification lists. However, it emphasized the need for a thorough examination of documents supporting deductions and directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-examine the matter. The appeal was allowed for de novo adjudication to determine the approved price lists qualifying for permissible deductions and consequential demands, ensuring cooperation from the appellants in the process.