1999 (2) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Denies Miscellaneous Applications, Remands Case for Reconsideration without Predeposit

The Tribunal denied the miscellaneous applications seeking affidavits and documents from the Commissioner of Central Excise and Joint Secretary. It ruled ... Stay/dispensation of predeposit Issues:1. Direction to Commissioner of Central Excise and Joint Secretary for affidavits and documents.2. Dutiability of dry fruits sold by the appellants.3. Stay application regarding demand order and imposition of penalties.Issue 1:The miscellaneous applications sought direction for the Commissioner of Central Excise and Joint Secretary to file affidavits and produce documents regarding non-payment of duty on goods based on advice from the Department. The Counsel for the appellant argued that they had met with the authorities and were advised that no duty was payable. However, the Revenue Authorities opposed, stating that dutiability is not a matter of opinion and must be decided through appropriate proceedings. The Tribunal found that the dutiability of goods is to be determined based on facts and provisions of Central Excise law, and the affidavits and documents requested were irrelevant. Therefore, the miscellaneous applications were not allowed.Issue 2:The main issue was the dutiability of various dry fruits sold by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the excisability of these goods should be decided based on relevant facts and provisions of the Central Excise law. The appellant argued that the demand order was contrary to facts and law, as it confirmed duty on the entire quantity of dry fruits without considering if they were preparations of nuts as covered by Tariff Item 20.01. The Tribunal observed that the segregation of processed and unprocessed goods is crucial for determining duty demand, as unprocessed goods are exempt. As this aspect was not adequately addressed in the adjudication order, the case was remanded for reconsideration without requiring predeposit of duty and penalties.Issue 3:Regarding the stay application, the appellant contended that the demand was excessive and unjustified, especially considering the duty amount on roasted and packed nuts. The appellant also argued against the imposition of penalties, claiming lack of awareness about duty liability. The Revenue Authorities opposed the grant of stay, asserting that Chapter 20 of the Tariff covers all preparations. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument about the segregation of processed and unprocessed goods impacting the duty demand calculation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case for reconsideration, allowing the appellants to present their defense during the fresh proceedings.