2024 (3) TMI 452 - AT - Central Excise

Order for provisional assessment on quarterly basis and on the basis of CAS-4 certificate for a particular quarter - presumptive order - HELD THAT - There is a loss to understand how learned Commissioner (Appeals) has come to a conclusion that the said observations were on the basis of fact because there is no supporting data available either in the orders ordering provisional assessment nor is it available anywhere in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is a presumptive order - impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to provisional assessment orders passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioners based on observations by the Deputy Director (Cost) without concrete evidence, violation of principles of natural justice, and the correctness of the observations leading to demands of differential duty.

Provisional Assessment Orders:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of polyester films, faced provisional assessment orders by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioners for both Chikalthana and Waluj units. These orders were based on observations by the Deputy Director (Cost) regarding inaccuracies in the CAS-4 certificates submitted by the appellant. The appellant challenged these orders before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) citing lack of verification and violation of natural justice principles.

Observations by Deputy Director (Cost):
The observations made by the Deputy Director (Cost) were deemed factual points by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and were not considered as opinions or interpretations interfering with the provisional assessment orders. However, the appellant argued that there was no concrete data supporting these observations, leading to the impugned order being based on assumptions and presumptions.

Decision and Conclusion:
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was presumptive as there was no supporting data establishing the observations as facts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing both appeals in favor of the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 07.03.2024.