Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Acc Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 March, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal Nos.E/782/2007 & E/298/2008 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.67/2007-CE dt. 30.8.2007 and OIA No.60/2008-C.Ex. dt. 15.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner ofCustoms, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore] ACC Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance:
Shri B.Sri Ram, Consultant For the Appellant Shri S.Nagalingam, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member HonbleShriMadhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Date of hearing / decision :03.03.2017 FINAL ORDER No.40402-40403/2017 PerD.N. Panda Hearing the arguments of both sides and their contentions from time to time and also examining the show cause notices, adjudication orders and Order-in-Appeals, it throws light that none of the authorities have focused on the allegations made in the SCN. The allegations in the SCN are :-
(i) Appellant cleared Flotation Rejects.
(ii) Flotation Rejects was alleged to fall under CETH 6807.90.
(iii) There was no payment of duty on the flotation rejects.
(iv) For non-payment of duty, there was violation of the law.
(v) The flotation rejects are outcome of the manufacture of cement.
(vi) There was availment of cenvat credit on the input 'Rosin'.
2. The crux of the issue is whether the 'flotation rejects' were manufactured by appellant and such goods were meant for limestone beneficiation to make use thereof for ultimate production of cement. Further such rejects are intermediary and excisable goods and marketable. Without addressing such issue, the Authority proceeded unmindfully. Therefore it has become the necessity that the show cause notice needs readjudication to determine the above issue. The adjudicating authority is therefore directed to examine the following:
(i) whether the appellant had manufactured flotation rejects and whether it was intermediate goods?
(ii) whether flotation rejects are the outcome of any manufacturing process ?
(iii) whether flotation rejects are as such recognized as excisable goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and marketable in common parlance?
Only after extensive enquiry and examination of the process of manufacture as well as evidence, the authority can reach to proper conclusion. Appellant is entitled to the course of natural Justice in the process of readjudication. The Authority recording defence plea and evidence shall pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order.
In the result, appeals are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member Judicial Member
gs
3
Appeal Nos.E/782/2007 &
E/298/2008