Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3007
SUPREME COURT
,
Commissioner of Central Excise Allahabad v. J. R. Organics Limited
Appeal No. E / 1686/2008 - EX (DB)
The misreading of show cause notice by the Appellate Tribunal necessitates remanding for fresh consideration as per law.
Headnote:The judgment addresses the appeal against Order No. 71005 of 2018, quashing the show cause notice on grounds of vagueness, particularly regarding compliance with cost accounting standards as per section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court found that the Appellate Tribunal misinterpreted the notice, and thus remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits, keeping all questions open. The final outcome of the appeal is that the impugned order is set aside, allowing the appeal in the specified terms.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the show cause notice's vagueness violates procedural clarity. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. misinterpretation by the tribunal necessitates remand. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appeal allowed, returning for fuller examination. (Para 6) |
1. Delay condoned. Appeal admitted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the final Order No. 71005 of 2018 dated 20.02.2019 in appeal NO. E / 1686/2008 - EX (DB) passed by the CESTAT, Regional Bench, Allahabad, whereby the show cause notice issued by the Central Excise Commissionerate dated 08.11.2017 came to be quashed on the solitary ground that the same was vague having failed to specifically mention that the respondent valued their goods, transferred to other units, at a value lesser than the value as per CAS - 4 Standards.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the show cause notice opens with the statement which adverts to breach of cost accounting standards in the following words:
"Whereas M/s. J.R. Organics Ltd. Captainganj distillery, Captaingaj have contravened the provisions of S.4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') read with R.4, R.6 and R.11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in as much as they have (Indulged in evasion of Central Excise duty by suppressing their assessable value and during the period April 2003 to March 2006 they have evaded Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 1,43,34,224=00 by way of not paying the duty on the specific values arrived at by their Cost Accountant based on cost accounting standards and in terms of S.4 of read with R.8 and R.9 of Central Excise Valuation R.2000."
4. In any case, the respondent understood the purport of the show cause notice and had also submitted representation on the premise that the value of their goods in question was not lesser than the value as per CAS - 4 Standards. That is the core issue to be considered by the Tribunal.
5. We hold that the Appellate Tribunal has misread the subject show cause notice. Hence, the conclusion reached on such erroneous basis cannot be sustained. The matter will now proceed before the Tribunal for consideration afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. Needless to observe that all consequential steps taken on the basis of the stated show cause notice will be subject to the final view taken by the Tribunal in the remanded proceedings.
6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties before the Tribunal for consideration of the appeal afresh. All questions are left open. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
