Excise – Cestat Chennai: Once the Tribunal had given a specific direction to extend the cum-duty benefit to the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner ought to have followed it – Appeal allowed [Order attached]
Order Date – 28 February 2023
Parties: M/s. United Industries Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise
- The Appellant, M/s. United Industries Limited, is engaged in the manufacture of “Tread Rubber” used in the retreading industry. On verification of the accounts, by the Department, it was found that the appellant had not brought on account sales made to certain consumers, including some state transport corporations.
- A Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.1986 was issued proposing to demand duty and for imposing penalties. The matter was remanded by the Tribunal on 06.11.2001 for de novo consideration and with a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to the appellant.
- In de novo proceedings, the Commissioner confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellant, having cleared the goods by way of parallel set of invoices, without payment of duty, is not entitled to the benefit of the cum-duty value.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the cum-duty value?
- The Tribunal observed that they had given a specific direction to extend the cum-duty benefit to the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated the demand after granting the benefit.
- If the Department has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 06.11.2001 directing to extend the cum-tax benefit, the Commissioner cannot deny the benefit stating that the appellant is not entitled to modification of the demand as they have issued parallel set of invoices.
- Hence the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the demand of Rs.4,66,796.14/- to Rs.3,69,606/- without disturbing the amounts paid or penalties thereon.
- Appeal partly allowed.