COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MORARJEE BREMBANA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.A. No. 8182-8185/2003

(2.) The Department perceived that the aforesaid Notification No. 8/97 : , dated 1.3.1997 is not applicable in the instant case and instead of that, Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4.1.95 is the Notification which would be applicable. On this basis show cause notices were issued to the Respondent demanding excise duty in a sum of Rs. 2,36,22,334/- and levy of penalty was also proposed. After adjudication Order-in-Original dated 13.10.2000 was passed by the CCE confirming the aforesaid demand and imposing the penalty of Rs. 48 lakhs. We may mention here that the period involved was from May 1998 to February 2000 and 3rd December 1998 to 22nd August 2000 in the show cause notices. The Respondent filed appeal against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner before the CEGAT, Mumbai. It is clear from the above that issue pertained to the applicability of Notification Nos. 2/95 or 8/97 : ,. As noted above, as per the Respondent/Assessee it is Notification No. 8/97 : , which is applicable whereas the Revenue took the position that Notification No. 2/95 is applicable in the instant case. The Order-in-Original also decided that the Notification No. 2/95 would be applicable. Therefore, in the appeal filed by the Respondent, it took the plea that Notification 8/97 is applicable and the finding of the Commissioner that Notification 2/95 was applicable was erroneous.

(3.) Pertinently, during the pendency of the said appeals, the Respondent filed miscellaneous application wherein it sought to raise certain additional grounds. One of the grounds was that even if Notification 8/97 is applicable, valuation of the goods should be worked out Under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. This miscellaneous application was opposed by the Department by filing its objections, inter alia, stating that it was not the issue raised in reply to the show cause notices and was not the subject matter of the Order-in-Original. Further, it was not a pure question of law and therefore, the Respondent should not be allowed to raise this additional ground.