2009 (9) TMI 803 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns Commissioner's decision on duty assessment, emphasizes importance of considering all evidence

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's rejection of the appellants' request to move out of the annual capacity-based duty assessment for 1998-99 and ... - Issues:Challenge to rejection of request for moving out of Compounded Levy Scheme for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 based on actual production data.Analysis:The appellants, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots and billets from scraps, opted for annual capacity production-based duty assessment under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act 1944 for the year 1997. The Commissioner allowed this and fixed the annual capacity. However, for the subsequent years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the appellants sought to move out of the annual capacity-based assessment and pay duty on actual production. Despite addressing letters to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to this effect, their requests were rejected, leading to differential duty demands. The Commissioner's rejection was based on the appellants' failure to provide evidence that their actual production was lower than the annual production capacity (ACP) fixed by the Commissioner.In the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellants argued that they had been paying duty on actual production basis for the years in question and had been filing RT 12 returns, which contained the necessary data, at the Jurisdictional Range Office. They highlighted that due to the unit being taken over by the UP State Finance Corporation in 2000, they no longer had access to the records. The appellants requested a remand for reconsideration of their request, emphasizing that the required information could be obtained from the Range Office based on the RT 12 returns filed during 1998-99 and 1999-2000.The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had indeed paid duty on actual production basis during the disputed years and had submitted RT 12 returns to the Range Office. It found the Commissioner's reasons for rejecting the request inadequate, as the data regarding production was available and accessible to the Department from the Range Office. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication after obtaining the production data for 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The Commissioner was directed to complete the adjudication within three months due to the age of the matter.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of considering all available data and evidence when adjudicating matters related to duty assessment, ensuring that decisions are based on accurate information and procedural fairness.