2007 (7) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty deposit order, finds no liability for specific goods, rules in favor of appellant

BIHAR FOUNDRY & CASTINGS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RANCHI

The Tribunal set aside the de novo order of adjudication challenged by the appellant, directing them to deposit duty demand for August 1997. In another ... Adjudication authority travelled beyond directions of remand order for quantification of duty & further re-adjudicated the matter, which had already reached finality – re-adjudication can’t be said proper – Compounded levy scheme – not proved that appellant manufactured bars & rods other than bars & rods of alloy steel - hold that the provisions of Rule 96ZO (3) would be applicable and no duty-liability can be fastened in respect of the Furnace, in which non-notified goods are manufactured Issues involved:1. Challenge to de novo order of adjudication.2. Quantification of duty liability for specific goods manufactured.3. Appeal against order remanded by Tribunal.4. Duty liability for manufacturing specific goods.Issue 1: Challenge to de novo order of adjudicationThe appellant challenged the de novo order of adjudication passed on 12-10-2004, arguing that the Adjudicating Commissioner had exceeded the Tribunal's specific direction from the first round of litigation. The appellant contended that Furnace No. 2 only produced non-notified goods during the disputed period, as established by documents submitted to the authorities. The Tribunal had previously directed to quantify duty only for notified goods, which was not done by the Adjudicating Commissioner. The appellant was willing to deposit the demanded amount for August 1997, as observed by the Tribunal. The Revenue argued that the re-assessment by the authority was legitimate, considering contradicting evidence. The Tribunal found that the original findings remained unchanged and set aside the impugned order, directing the appellant to deposit the duty demand for August 1997.Issue 2: Quantification of duty liability for specific goods manufacturedIn Appeal No. EDM-73/05 and EDM-510/05, the appellant contended that they exclusively manufactured bars and rods of alloy steel, not falling under notified goods, and thus should not have duty liability. The appellant argued that relevant excise documents supported their claim, and they had discharged duty on ad valorem for the specific goods produced. The appellant relied on CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal decisions in their favor. The Revenue claimed there was sufficient material for the Department to support duty liability. The Tribunal found no credible evidence to suggest the appellant manufactured goods other than alloy steel bars and rods. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.Issue 3: Appeal against order remanded by TribunalAppeal No. EDM-73/05 and EDM-510/05 arose from orders remanded by the Tribunal, directing de novo adjudication. The appellant argued that they should not have duty liability as they exclusively manufactured non-notified goods. The Revenue maintained that the de novo proceeding was justified based on available evidence. After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals.---