2000 (5) TMI 898 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Excisability of 25 items produced by the appellants.
2. Quantification of duty demand.
3. Validity of the order-in-original as a speaking order.
4. Consideration of miscellaneous goods under T.I. 68.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Excisability of 25 Items Produced by the Appellants:
The primary issue in the appeal concerns the excisability of 25 items produced by the appellants. The appellants argued that the impugned order did not consider these items clearly item by item, nor did it discuss the nature and manufacturing process of these items to conclude that they are manufactured goods. The Tribunal noted that 15 out of these 25 items had already been considered by various authorities as not being excisable goods, thus the duty demand on these items needs to be set aside. The appellants conceded that the remaining 10 items would attract duty, amounting to Rs. 14,23,060.26 at 12% ad valorem.

2. Quantification of Duty Demand:
The appellants contended that while the show cause notice quantified the duty demand at Rs. 99.21 lakhs for the period from 1980-81 to 1984-85, the impugned order confirmed a larger duty amount of Rs. 1.15 crores, which goes beyond the show cause notice. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority was unclear about the correct quantification of the duty, as evidenced by the remarks in para 11 of the impugned order.

3. Validity of the Order-in-Original as a Speaking Order:
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order is a non-speaking order despite the matter having been remanded twice previously. The order lacked detailed descriptions of each item, the manufacturing process, and the reasons for their excisability. The Tribunal emphasized that a duty demand for excisable goods requires a detailed consideration of each item individually.

4. Consideration of Miscellaneous Goods under T.I. 68:
The show cause notice included an annexure mentioning "Other miscellaneous goods falling under T.I. 68" with a value of Rs. 60,66,569.30 and duty of Rs. 7,27,988.31. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not provide details of these items, making the duty liability charge vague. The adjudicating authority needs to identify and examine the exact description and nature of these goods to determine their dutiability.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, deeming it a non-speaking order that went beyond the show cause notice. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for de novo consideration. The Original Authority was directed to consider each item specifically and separately, analyze the manufacturing process, and provide a reasoned and clear finding on its dutiability. The adjudicating authority was also instructed to hear the appellants regarding the miscellaneous goods and consider earlier decisions on the 15 items that had acquired finality. The Tribunal expected the adjudication proceedings to be completed on a priority basis. The appeal was allowed by remand.

← Previous Next →