2024 (7) TMI 392 - HC - Customs

Scope of SCN - Demand of duty foregone on raw materials (imported as well as indigenously procured) used in the manufacture of the finish goods cleared into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) by debiting credit scrips issued under the Served From India Scheme (SFIS) without payment of duty in terms of N/N. 34/2006-CE - whether debiting of duty credit scrips issued under the SFIS on clearance of finish goods from EOU to DTA would amount to payment of duty or will amount to availment of exemption benefit in terms of Notification No. 34/2006-CE? HELD THAT - The Tribunal has traveled beyond the scope of dispute and has upheld duty demand by relying upon proviso to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was never raised by the Department either in the show cause notice or the orders passed by the lower authorities. It is settled law that the Tribunal shall not travel beyond the scope of relief and the case made out in the show cause notice. This is a fit case to interfere. The impugned order dated 10th February 2022 to the extent it opposed the demands of duty along with applicable interest is quashed and set aside and remanded to the CESTAT to decide afresh. Since the issue involved pertains to period of September 2008 to May 2009, the Tribunal is requested to dispose the matter before 31st December 2024.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against the order dated 10th February 2022 under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning duty foregone on raw materials used in manufacturing finished goods cleared into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) by debiting credit scrips issued under the Served From India Scheme (SFIS) without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 34/2006-CE.

Analysis:
1. Scope of Relief and Dispute: The appeals challenged an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rejecting part of the relief sought. The issue revolved around whether debiting duty credit scrips under SFIS on clearance of goods from Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to DTA constitutes duty payment or availing exemption under Notification No. 34/2006-CE. The Tribunal's decision was questioned for exceeding the dispute's scope by relying on a provision not raised by the Department in the show cause notice or lower authorities' orders.

2. Legal Interpretation and Settled Law: The Tribunal's reliance on a provision not raised earlier was deemed inappropriate. The judgment highlighted that the Tribunal should not exceed the relief's scope or the case presented in the show cause notice. It emphasized that the duty demand cannot be upheld based on unraised provisions. The legal interpretation emphasized the importance of sticking to the issues raised in the notice and not expanding beyond the presented case.

3. Judgment and Remand: In light of the above analysis, the Court found it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order dated 10th February 2022. The order opposing duty demands and applicable interest was quashed and set aside. The case was remanded to CESTAT for a fresh decision. The Court instructed CESTAT to resolve the matter concerning the period from September 2008 to May 2009 before 31st December 2024, ensuring timely disposal of the issue.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal nuances and implications of the judgment, focusing on the interpretation of provisions, the scope of relief, and the appropriate course of action taken by the Court to address the issues raised in the appeals.