2017 (1) TMI 421 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of short levy on output - output being exempted under N/N. 115/75-CE dated 30th April 1975 - Held that - Just as no law, instruction or judgement can prevent a tax collector from levying a tax in accordance with law, no law, instruction or judgement can be allowed to impede a tax collector from fulfilling his constitutional obligation to collect only such tax as is authorized by law. In the present situation, the collection of the duty thus far has been without authority of law; lack of procedural wherewithal may prevent rectification of that illegality but a judicial mind should confine that illegality to the past without compounding that illegality for all time to come. Subjecting that decision to review and appeal with the sole purpose of perpetuating that illegality bespeaks impropriety. We find that the impugned order cannot be held to have travelled beyond the notice or has conferred a benefit on an assessee sans a procedure in law. As the duty was not leviable, a demand for further recovery of a duty not leviable is without authority of law and must fail - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation dispute regarding chemicals manufactured out of waste filter cake.
2. Application of best judgment rule in Central Excise Valuation Rules.
3. Interpretation of exemption notification for solvent extraction industry.
4. Allegations of short-levy and duty recovery.
5. Review of tax liability and procedural legality.

Valuation Dispute:
The case involved a valuation dispute regarding chemicals manufactured using waste filter cake supplied by another company. The Revenue claimed that the value adopted by the manufacturing company did not include the cost of the waste filter cake, leading to a differential duty calculation. The Revenue invoked the best judgment rule for duty recovery, penalizing the manufacturing company and individuals involved.

Exemption Notification Interpretation:
The main issue was the eligibility of the manufacturing company for an exemption under a notification for the solvent extraction industry. The Revenue argued that the company should have challenged the duty liability instead of paying it, citing legal precedents. However, the Tribunal found that the company had not sought a reversal of the tax liability, rendering the Revenue's arguments invalid.

Short-Levy Allegations and Duty Recovery:
The adjudicating authority was tasked with deciding on the allegation of short-levy. The Tribunal clarified that short-levy implies an outstanding duty recovery, which was not the case here as the duty collected was in excess of the leviable amount. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty already paid was not set aside by the adjudicating authority.

Review of Tax Liability and Procedural Legality:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of procedural legality in tax matters, emphasizing that the duty collected without legal authority should not be demanded further. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, urging the tax authorities to ensure a responsible discharge of their review powers to uphold the legality and propriety of tax-related decisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the need for tax authorities to collect revenue lawfully and avoid unjust levies. The judgment clarified the issues surrounding valuation disputes, exemption notifications, short-levy allegations, and the importance of procedural legality in tax matters.