2015 (12) TMI 864 - AT - Central Excise

Registration - Single registration for unit 1 and unit 2 - claim of benefit of captive consumption at tribunal stage - valuation - appellant has not declared the correct value despite valuation has been settled - Held that - Appellant have never made claim of exemption Notification No 67/95-CE before the lower authorities. However, before the Commissioner (Appeals) in their prayer they prayed for setting aside the order-in-original. As regard the claim of the appellant of the exemption Notification 67/95-CE at the Tribunal stage, I agree with Ld. Counsel that the Notification being question of law can be raised at the stage of Tribunal also. As regard the contention of the appellant that the status of single registration should be maintained with effect from filing of their application, I am of the view that since the matter of very same application which was traveled up to the High Court and it was held that single registration should be granted, effect should be given from the date of application made by the appellant for single registration i.e. 30/7/2001. It is undisputed that since the claim of the Notification No. 67/1995 was not made by the appellant before lower authorities explicitly in Appeal made before the Commissioner(Appeals). It is just and proper that matter should be remanded to the original authority to examine eligibility of Notiifcation No. 67/95-CE and the clearance made by the appellant to their another unit No.1 - Matter remanded back - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty, interest, and duty demand on excisable goods clearance.
2. Single registration application rejection and its implications on excise duty liability.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) concerning penalty, interest, and duty demand on excisable goods clearance. The appellant, M/s. Vidyut Metalics Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2, was accused of not declaring the correct value despite a settled valuation order. The adjudication resulted in confirming a demand of Rs. 8,072/- and Rs. 2,73,255/- with interest and a penalty of Rs. 2,87,296/-. The Commissioner(Appeals) modified the order, upholding duty demand and interest but setting aside the penalty. The appellant argued for the applicability of Notification No. 67/95-CE for captive consumption clearance, claiming exemption not raised before lower authorities. The Tribunal remanded the matter to reexamine eligibility under the said notification and clearances made to another unit.

2. The second issue revolved around the rejection of a single registration application for units No. 2 and 1, impacting excise duty liability. The appellant contended that the single registration should be effective from the application date of 30/7/2001, following a legal battle up to the High Court resulting in the grant of single registration. The Revenue opposed, stating the duty was correctly payable as both units had registration during goods clearance. The Tribunal agreed that the single registration should be effective from the application date and directed a reevaluation of the eligibility under Notification No. 67/95-CE and clearances to unit No. 1, emphasizing the need for a proper examination by the original authority within three months.