2015 (4) TMI 388 - SC - Central Excise

Demand of additional duty - Demad on Grieg fabric was demanded on the ground that the Signature Not Verified - Held that - Court dispose of these appeals with direction to the Commissioner to decide all the laid down issues afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce whatever evidence/material they want to rely upon in support of their respective contentions. As a result, the impugned order of the Tribunal and the consequential orders passed by the Commissioner will stand set aside - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional issue under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957
2. Marketability of the intermediary product
3. Applicability of nil duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978
4. Duty payable if the intermediary product is classified under a specific heading
5. Exemption from additional duty under the 1957 Act based on specific notifications
6. Invocation of longer limitation period for issuing show cause notices
7. Quantification of disputed demand and entitlement to specific benefit under Notification No.13/05-CE (NT)

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Foundrinier Synthetic Wire Cloth, claimed that the cloth fell under sub-heading 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show cause notices were issued from 1992 to 2003, demanding additional excise duty on the grounds that the fabric was an intermediary product. Orders confirming the duty and penalties were passed, leading to appeals by the appellant.

2. The appeals raised various issues, including the jurisdictional matter of invoking the 1957 Act without proper notice, the marketability of the intermediary product, and the applicability of nil duty under the 1978 Act if the product was marketable. The classification of the product under specific headings and exemptions based on notifications were also contested.

3. The court found that certain aspects needed fresh consideration, especially regarding the marketability of the intermediary product. It directed the Commissioner to adjudicate all raised issues anew, allowing both parties to present evidence. The Tribunal's orders were set aside, along with related demands.

4. The judgment highlighted the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the issues, emphasizing a fair opportunity for both parties to present their arguments and evidence. The decision aimed to ensure a just and thorough examination of the disputed matters, ultimately setting aside previous orders for a fresh determination by the Commissioner.