2013 (6) TMI 583 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Success: Appellant Not Liable for Tax

M/s PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD

M/s PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD - TMI Issues:1. Allegation of clearing damaged aluminium tubes without accounting for and paying duty.2. Interpretation of earlier litigative events and their impact on the current proceedings.3. Applicability of duty on the value of aluminium scrap cleared without accounting and payment of duty.4. Assessment of liability, determination of duty, and quantification of excise duty.5. Effect of dropping the demand and setting aside the primary order on the appellant.Analysis:Issue 1: The appellant, a manufacturer of synthetic adhesives, procured aluminium tubes and availed CENVAT credit. Revenue alleged that the appellant cleared damaged aluminium tubes without accounting for and paying duty.Issue 2: The litigative events from the earlier period were considered to determine the impact on the current proceedings. Previous orders by different authorities and courts were analyzed to assess the relevance of the current appeal.Issue 3: The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the earlier litigative events did not bar the adjudication for the current period. The show-cause notices were issued based on the alleged duty liability on the value of aluminium scrap cleared without accounting and payment of duty.Issue 4: The assessment of liability, determination of duty, and quantification of excise duty were not conducted by the primary or appellate authorities. No conclusive decision was made regarding the liability of the appellant to pay duty on the damaged aluminium tubes.Issue 5: The appellate authority set aside the primary order, which did not result in imposing any liability on the appellant to remit tax. As no civil consequences were imposed on the appellant, the dismissal of the appeal did not cause any prejudice or assessment of duty, interest, or penalty on the appellant.