M/S. Autolite India Ltd vs C.C.E Jaipur-I

[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 14/2006/Commissioner dated: 28.02.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur-I]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Autolite India Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E Jaipur-I Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants

Mr. Yashpal Sharma, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.19.03.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50892 /2015-Ex(Br)

Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench):

The appellant are manufacturers of halogen lamps, bulbs and auto mobile headlights etc. For manufacture of glass lens, to be used as headlight covers, the appellant require dies, rings and plungers which are manufactured by the appellant and thereafter, were being cleared to job workers for use in manufacture of glass lens on job work basis. The period of dispute in this case is from 01.04.1995 to 28.02.1998. During this period, the appellant were clearing the dies, rings and plungers fabricated by them to their job workers without payment of duty under invoices by availing full duty exemption under notification no. 67/95-CE. The appellants factory was visited on 06.02.1998 and 25.03.1998. The officers were of the view that the appellant are not eligible for the exemption under notification No. 67/95-CE being availed by them in respect of the clearances of dies rings, and plungers being cleared by them to their job-workers. It is on this basis that the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31.03.2000 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,22,71,810/- against the appellant in respect of clearances of dies, rings and plungers during period from 01.04.1995 to 28.02.1998 to job workers along with interest on it under section 11AC as well as under Rule 173Q(d)(1) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. On appeal being filed to Tribunal, the Tribunal vide majority order dated 29.08.2002 held that the benefit of notification no. 67/95-CE would not be available to the appellant and as such they would be required to pay duty on the clearances of dies, rings and plungers to their job workers. However, Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-quantification of duty, observing that quantities mention in annexure I and II of the Show Cause Notice have to be deducted from the total quantity taken by the Department as removed without payment of duty and that the quantity found at the time of stock taking is also to be deducted from the quantity of which the duty demand has been made in the Show Cause Notice. The Annexure I & II of the Show Cause Notice contain details of the work in progress.

2. The matter adjudicated de novo by the Commissioner vide order in original dated 29.08.2003 by which the Commissioner once again confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,22,71,810/- against the appellant along with interest and beside this, imposed penalties on them and section 11AC and Rule 173Q(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules 1944.

3. The appellant again filed appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide final order dated 03.01.2005 again remanded the matter to the Commissioner with specific directions that:- (a) the quantities mention in annexure I & II to the Show Cause Notice have to be deducted from the total quantity taken by the Department as removed without payment of duty and; (b) the quantity found at the time of stock taking has to be deducted from the quantity on which the duty demand has been made in the Show Cause Notice.

4. In 3rd round of adjudication, the Commissioner vide order in original dated 28.02.2006 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 67,75,660/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 19,93,326/- under section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 15 Lac under Rule 173Q(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules. However, the appellant have filed appeal once again against the Commissioners order dated 28.02.2006 pleading that the Commissioner has not followed the directions of the Tribunal in its order dated 03.01.2005, and that if these directions are followed the duty demand would be only about to Rs. 25 lac which the appellant have already paid.

5. We have heard both the sides.

6. Both the sides are of the view that since, the dispute is only about calculation of duty demand, in respect of which the appellant have some grievances; this issue has to go back to the Commissioner once again. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication with regard to quantification of the duty demand, strictly in terms of the directions given in the Tribunals order dated 03.01.2005. The matter regarding quantification of the duty demand has to be adjudicated after hearing the appellants grievances with regard to the method of calculation adopted by the Commissioner. Since it is an old matter, the Commissioner is directed to complete the adjudication proceedings within six months.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(Rakesh Kumar)

Member (Technical)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1