Case Law Details
United Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of “Tread Rubber” used in the retreading industry. On verification of the accounts, by the Department, it was found that the appellant had not brought on account sales made to certain consumers, including some state transport corporations. Investigations were initiated and a Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.1986 was issued proposing to demand duty and for imposing penalties. After due process law, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 19/87 dated 29.04.1987 confirmed the duty and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order dated 29.04.1987, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal.
2. The matter was remanded by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1887/2001 dated 06.11.2001 for de novo consideration and with a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to the appellant. In de novo proceedings, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2012 confirming the duty demand of Rs.4,66,796.14/- and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
3.1 Shri M. Kannan, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that though the Tribunal had, in the first round of litigation, given a specific direction to extend the cum-duty benefit to the appellant, the Commissioner has denied the same in the de novo proceedings. He pointed out that in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the 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.
3.2 He prayed that the request for the same be considered, and the demand requantified.
4. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue, supported the findings in the impugned order.
5. On 13.02.2023, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Bench had directed the Department to verify the details of the calculation of demand stated in the appeal memorandum after taking into account the cum-duty value as furnished by the appellant. The matter was heard again on 17.02.2023 and the Learned Authorized Representative for the respondent submitted that they have no objection as to the calculation of demand arrived at by the appellant after taking into account the cum-duty benefit. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after extending the cum-duty benefit, the total duty payable by them would be Rs.3,69,606/-.
6. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion 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.
7. In the result, we hold that 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.
8. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2023)
