Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hi Tech Arai Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 December, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/409/2003
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.193/2003 dt. 22.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Hi Tech Arai Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Smt.Sreevidya, Advocate Shri C.Dhanasekaran, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 1.12.2009 Date of decision : 1.12.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the adjudication order passed by the Asst. Commissioner vide which he has confirmed only an amount of differential duty of Rs.96,258/- raised in the show-cause notice dt. 2.2.99 and dropped proceedings for recovery of the duty raised in the remaining show-cause notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that duty could be demanded retrospectively under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on reclassification of excisable goods, despite the fact that the past clearances were made on payment of appropriate duty as per the approved classification list. Hence this appeal by the assessees.
2. On hearing both sides, we find that in the case of the same assessee, the issue of classification of the goods in dispute of which demand has been confirmed has been remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the classification, vide Final Order No.1064 to 1066/08 dt. 11.9.08. The classification of the goods is required to be first determined before the question whether demand can be raised and confirmed retrospectively, arises. In the light of the earlier decisions cited supra, we set aside the impugned order in the present appeal and remit the case for fresh decision along with the earlier case to the adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence.
3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
5