2015 (5) TMI 559 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notifications 83/94-CE and 84/94-CE both dated 11.4.1994 - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - Appellants have claimed the benefit of Notifications 83/94 and 84/94 for the first time before the Tribunal and obviously the same has not been examined by the original authority or by the first appellate authority. It also appears to us that the supplier of the goods, M/s. D.S. Enterprises, is a trading unit and not a manufacturing unit and the conditions stipulated under Notifications 83/94 and 84/94 are of a nature which can be satisfied by a manufacturer. Since the plea for the benefit of the two notifications has been raised for the first time, it would be proper to remand the matter to the original authority to examine whether the appellants would be really eligible to get the benefit of Notifications 83/94 or 84/94. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Eligibility for Notification 214/86 benefit
2. Claiming benefit under Notifications 83/94 and 84/94
3. Extended period of limitation for penalty under Section 11AC

Eligibility for Notification 214/86 benefit:
The appellants were involved in manufacturing excisable goods and performing job work for another entity. The first appellate authority determined that the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of Notification 214/86 due to the supplier of the goods not paying duty. However, it was acknowledged that if the correct procedure had been followed, the appellants could claim modvat credit on inputs, reducing their duty liability. The penalty under Section 11AC was set aside. The appellants appealed this decision, arguing they were entitled to the benefit of Notifications 83/94 and 84/94, which would eliminate their duty liability. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not previously claimed the benefit of these notifications and remanded the matter to the original authority for examination.

Claiming benefit under Notifications 83/94 and 84/94:
The appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notifications 83/94 and 84/94, which had not been raised before the original or appellate authorities. The Tribunal observed that the supplier of the goods was a trading unit, not a manufacturing unit, making it necessary to determine if the appellants truly qualified for the benefits under these notifications. As the claim was made for the first time, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for a thorough examination of the eligibility criteria under Notifications 83/94 and 84/94.

Extended period of limitation for penalty under Section 11AC:
Regarding the penalty under Section 11AC, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set it aside based on the potential eligibility for modvat credit, reducing the duty liability. The Tribunal noted that the issue of penalty was not under appeal by the Revenue and thus not before them. However, they highlighted that the proviso to Section 11A establishes specific conditions for invoking the extended period of limitation. Since the case was remanded to examine the newly claimed benefit under Notifications 83/94 and 84/94, the original authority was directed to consider the plea for the extended period without being influenced by previous observations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case, keeping all issues open for further examination by the original authority.

← Previous Next →