Appeal allowed, remanded for fresh examination emphasizing natural justice principles. Extended period demand set aside.

The appeal filed by M/s. Black Diamond Explosives Pvt. Ltd against the central excise duty demand, penalty, and interest was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh examination, emphasizing adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, setting aside the demand related to the extended period and revoking the penalty imposition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Central excise duty demand confirmation along with penalty and interest.
2. Valuation of goods under Rule 4 or Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
3. Consideration of written reply by the Ld. Commissioner.
4. Justification of duty demand on Matrix Emulsion.
5. Remand of the matter to Ld. Commissioner.
6. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
7. Imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Black Diamond Explosives Pvt. Ltd against the Order confirming central excise duty demand of Rs. 4,68,84,408/-, penalty under Section 11AC, and interest for the period from January 2009 to November 2013. The demand was raised based on a Show Cause Notice invoking extended period of limitation.

2. The main issue revolved around the valuation of goods, specifically "Matrix Emulsion" cleared from one unit to another. The appellant valued the goods under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, while the department contended that Rule 4 should have been applied. The appellant argued that the goods were not comparable as they were used in the manufacture of a final product at a different unit.

3. The Ld. Commissioner failed to consider the written reply submitted by the appellant before passing the impugned order. The appellant raised objections based on the principles of natural justice, citing a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

4. The appellant argued that the duty demand on Matrix Emulsion was unjustified as it was an input for the final product, Site Mixed Explosives. They contended that the valuation based on the price of the final product cleared from a different unit was incorrect.

5. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh examination of facts and a reasoned order considering all contentions raised by the appellant.

6. The Tribunal found that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified as there was no evidence of deliberate non-payment of duty due to fraud or suppression. The demand related to the extended period was set aside, and penalty imposition was also revoked.

7. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing adherence to the principles of natural justice in the proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, procedural lapses, and the Tribunal's decision on each issue involved in the judgment.

---