2017 (11) TMI 878 - HC - Central Excise

High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on scrap clearance limits under SION, stresses strict exemption rules

Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Earlier Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Versus Continental Engines Ltd.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing with the remand of the matter for verification of scrap cleared within approved limits of SION. ... N/N. 23/2003 dt. 31.03.2003 - Whether the ld. CESTAT was correct in law in extending the benefit of concessional rate of duty to the assesse in respect of scrap sale subject to the approved limits of SION fixed by the DGFT, when no such norms were fixed during the relevant period when such scrap were sold which is in violation of conditions prescribed under N/N. 23/2003 dt. 31.03.2003? Held that: - The contention raised by the respondent is required to be accepted in view of the fact that while considering the matter, the Tribunal has specifically observed that demand for differential duty since was dropped in respect of subsequent period - Tribunal was correct in holding that Since the input output norms have since been fixed by the DGFT the benefit of concessional rate for the scrap will be available to the appellants. The view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Concessional rate of duty on scrap sales under Notification No. 23/2003.2. Remand of matters to the Original Adjudicating Authority after significant delays.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Concessional Rate of Duty on Scrap Sales under Notification No. 23/2003The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision to extend the benefit of a concessional rate of duty on scrap sales under Notification No. 23/2003, arguing that no input-output norms (SION) were fixed during the relevant period. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal partly in favor of the assessee. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred by not considering the notification and the observations of the Commissioner and CIT(A), which highlighted the absence of fixed norms by the Development Commissioner, a prerequisite for availing the concessional rate.The Tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the availability of a concessional rate of duty on scrap cleared by a 100% EOU under Notification No. 23/2003-CE. The department denied this benefit due to the absence of fixed input-output norms. The appellant argued that they had applied for these norms, but they were not fixed in time. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's failure to fulfill the statutory conditions at the time of clearance disqualified them from the concessional rate. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of strict interpretation of exemption notifications.Issue 2: Remand of Matters to the Original Adjudicating Authority after Significant DelaysThe appellant questioned whether the Tribunal should have remanded the matters to the Original Adjudicating Authority after significant delays since the issuance of the first SCN, the passing of the OIO, and the OIA. The Tribunal's order was challenged on the grounds that the appellant's contentions were not raised before the Tribunal, making the appeal under Section 35G unsustainable as no substantial question of law arose.The Tribunal acknowledged that the input-output norms were eventually fixed by the DGFT after the disputed period. The Tribunal directed the original adjudicating authority to verify the calculations of the scrap cleared during the relevant periods and extend the benefit of the concessional rate within the approved limits of SION fixed by the DGFT. The Tribunal emphasized the need to expedite this process within two months.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it just and proper. It agreed with the Tribunal's directive to remand the matter for verification of the scrap cleared within the approved limits of SION, considering the norms were eventually fixed. The High Court dismissed the appeals, concluding that no substantial question of law arose, and the judgments cited by the appellant were not applicable to the facts of the case.