2023 (6) TMI 582 - AT - Central Excise

Seeking extension of Cum-Duty benefit - manufacture of Tread Rubber - case of Revenue is that appellant, having cleared the goods by way of parallel set of invoices, without payment of duty, is not entitled to the benefit of the cum-duty value - HELD THAT - When the Tribunal had given a specific direction to extend the cum-duty benefit to the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated the demand after granting the benefit. If the Department has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 06.11.2001 directing to extend the cum-tax benefit, the Commissioner cannot deny the benefit stating that the appellant is not entitled to modification of the demand as they have issued parallel set of invoices. The impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the demand of Rs.4,66,796.14/- to Rs.3,69,606/- without disturbing the amounts paid or penalties thereon - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case relate to duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant by the Department, specifically concerning the denial of cum-duty benefit by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings.

Summary:

Issue 1: Duty demand and penalties
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of "Tread Rubber," faced a duty demand and penalties after the Department found discrepancies in the accounts regarding sales made to certain consumers. The Original Authority confirmed the duty and penalties in an order dated 29.04.1987. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, leading to a remand for de novo consideration. The Commissioner, in the impugned order dated 21.11.2012, confirmed the duty demand and penalties, resulting in the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal again.

Issue 2: Denial of cum-duty benefit
During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that despite a previous direction from the Tribunal to extend the cum-duty benefit, the Commissioner denied this benefit in the de novo proceedings. The Commissioner's reasoning was based on the appellant clearing goods with a parallel set of invoices without paying duty, leading to a denial of the cum-duty value benefit. The appellant requested reconsideration of this decision and a requantification of the demand.

Judgment:
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority should have calculated the demand after granting the cum-duty benefit as directed previously. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Department did not appeal the earlier order directing the benefit extension, the Commissioner could not deny the benefit based on the issuance of parallel invoices. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, reducing the demand from Rs.4,66,796.14 to Rs.3,69,606 without affecting the amounts paid or penalties. The appeal was partly allowed with the mentioned relief and consequential reliefs, if any.