2006 (5) TMI 14 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns Commissioner's decision in dispute over electricity consumption for manufacturing ingots.

PRAGATI STEELS PVT. LTD. Versus CCE, KANPUR

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision in a dispute over electricity consumption for manufacturing ingots. The Commissioner failed to conduct ... Central Excise - De-novo proceedings - Commissioner has not follow CESTAT's directions in the remand proceedings as he found it impractical - No appeal filed against CESTAT's remand order - De-novo adjudication order set aside Issues:Dispute regarding electricity consumption for manufacturing ingots. Commissioner not following Tribunal's directions in remand proceedings.Analysis:The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. The dispute centered around the consumption of electricity for manufacturing ingots. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to examine the electricity consumption required for manufacturing 1 MT of MS ingots by conducting experiments in at least three factories under normal conditions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of determining the duty liability accurately based on empirical data rather than arbitrary figures.In the present appeal, it was contended that the Commissioner did not adhere to the Tribunal's directions in the remand proceedings. The appellant argued that the duty demand was confirmed at the same amount as before, despite the Tribunal's specific instructions. The Commissioner maintained that the original electricity consumption norm of 402 units per MT of ingots was correct, contrary to the appellant's claims. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the actual electricity consumption during production was closer to the norm provided by the furnace manufacturer, which was significantly higher than the Commissioner's figure.Upon reviewing the order, it was evident that the Commissioner had simply reiterated the earlier decision without conducting the experiments as directed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner deemed the Tribunal's directions impractical, which was not within his authority. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Commissioner found the directions impractical, the appropriate course of action would have been to appeal the order rather than disobeying it during the remand proceedings. The Tribunal deemed the Commissioner's actions as a violation of judicial discipline and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of following judicial directions and conducting empirical experiments to determine duty liability accurately. The Commissioner's failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions led to the order being set aside in favor of the appellant.