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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
