M/S. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.MAD-CEX-000-APP-080-13, dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central E
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The show-cause notice must be read as a whole, and where its allegations cannot be discerned from the notice read with its material paragraphs, the demand founded upon it cannot be sustained as a reasoned determination of liability. Where the appellate authority merely adopts the adjudication without examining the case in accordance with law, its order does not constitute a reasoned appellate determination and cannot be upheld on that footing. Where the record does not establish, through the adjudication or appellate findings, who is the principal manufacturer and who the job worker in respect of the goods removed, and the assessee shows that duty was discharged on the intermediate goods used in the final output, and no contrary finding is recorded, the duty demand and penalty founded on the unclear allegation cannot be sustained, and the appeal is allowed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.MAD-CEX-000-APP-080-13, dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
M/s. SUNDARAM FASTENERS LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Kannan, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 22-09-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 41263 / 2015
Reading of para 2 of the show-cause notice with paras 7 & 8 thereof does not throw light as to what is allegation against the appellant. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also in his finding did not examine the case in accordance with law but has simply agreed with the adjudication and confirmed the same.
2. The dispute gave rise to the duty demand of Rs.1,97,915/- with imposition of penalty to that extent. But the appellate Commissioner has recorded in para 2 of his order that the appellant undertook job work the sister concern and removed the goods without payment of duty. This does not provide any sense to law nor provide any basis to make any head or tail of the case as to who is principal and who is also job worker. If such is the situation of the application of law by Adjudicating authority and appellate authority, the assessee should not suffer. When assessee says that principal manufacturer has suffered duty on intermediate goods manufactured by job workers using such intermediate goods in final output by the principal and the value addition suffered duty and that was discharged in absence of contrary finding, appeal is allowed to reduce the dispute. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 28-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 22.09.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 23.09.2015
Fair Order Typing 26.09.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 28.09.2015
2 E/42142/2013
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free