2015 (10) TMI 1125 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Assessee contends that on the date of issue of Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2002, the provisions of Rule 57-I of the said Rules, 1944 was not in existence in the statute and the demand of Central Excise duty can not be confirmed under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules - Held that - Issue raised by the appellant was not raised before the lower authorities. Hence, it is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the facts of law of the case in the interest of justice. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of duty under Rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Existence of Rule 57-I at the time of Show Cause Notice - Appellant's contention on demand confirmation - Appellant's reliance on various decisions - Issue not raised before lower authorities - Remand for examination of facts and law - Decision set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. Demand of Duty under Rule 57I:
The main contention in the appeals was the confirmation of duty demand for the period June 1997 to January 1999 under Rule 57I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that at the time of the Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2002, Rule 57-I was not in existence, and therefore, the demand of Central Excise duty could not be confirmed under the old Rules. The advocate supported this argument by citing various decisions in similar cases.

2. Issue Not Raised Before Lower Authorities:
The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pointed out that the issue regarding the non-existence of Rule 57-I at the time of the Show Cause Notice was not raised before the lower authorities. The advocate for the appellants contested the demand on merits as well. The Tribunal's decision in the case of Bee Am Chemicals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad was also relied upon during the proceedings.

3. Remand for Examination of Facts and Law:
Upon consideration of the arguments presented, the judge found that the issue raised by the appellant was not brought up before the lower authorities. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the facts and law of the case in the interest of justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring the appellants would have a proper opportunity for a hearing before any decision was made.

4. Outcome and Dismissal of Stay Applications:
As a result of the detailed analysis and decision, all the appeals were allowed by way of remand. Additionally, the appellants' applications for an extension of the stay were dismissed as they were considered infructuous in the context of the remand order. The final order was dictated and pronounced in the court, concluding the proceedings in this matter.