Super Forging & Steels Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
The appeal concerned the valuation of finished goods cleared by the appellant to its own unit on payment of Central Excise duty. The Department alleged that the goods had not been valued correctly and raised a demand of Rs.29,33,166, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.
The appellant submitted that during the same period it had paid Rs.16,60,354 through supplementary invoices. According to the appellant, this payment had not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the Order-in-Original.
The appellant further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed its appeal solely on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement without examining the merits of the dispute.
In the de novo proceedings, the appellant contested the entire demand of Rs.29,33,166, furnished details of the payment of Rs.16,60,354, and stated that the recipient unit had taken CENVAT credit of that amount. The appellant also contested the balance demand.
The Tribunal observed that during the relevant period the requirement of pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) was governed by the Commissioner’s discretionary powers. It held that the appellant’s payment of Rs.16,60,304 was required to be treated as a pre-deposit. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appeal should be reheard by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to examine the documentary evidence and the applicable statutory provisions and to decide the matter by following the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The appellant submits that the issue pertains to clearing of the finished goods to their own unit on payment of Excise Duty, which the department claimed was not based on correct valuation. The demand was made for Rs.29,33,166 and the same was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.
2 The appellant submits that they had paid Rs.16,60,354/- through supplementary invoices during the same period which was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the Order-in-Original.
3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the Appeal on the ground that appellant has not complied with pre-deposit condition without going into the merits of the case.
4. In the denovo proceeding, the appellant has contested the entire demanded amount of Rs.29,33,166 and has given details of Rs.16,60,354/- paid by them and taken as CENVAT Credit by the recipient unit. They have also contested the issue pertaining to the balance amount.
5. During the period under litigation, pre-deposit to be made was as per the discretionary powers of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we hold that the appellants payment of Rs.16,60,304/- is to be taken as pre-deposit and the Appeal is required to be reheard by the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Therefore, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). He is required to go through the documentary evidence and the statutory provisions and follow the principles of natural justice in deciding the matter.
7. The Appeal is disposed of the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
