Commissioner Of Central Excise, Indore vs Indo Zinc Limited & Others

Having gone through the impugned judgment, we find that in these  cases the differential duty was claimed by the Department on two grounds,  namely, undervaluation and clandestine removal. As far as undervaluation is  concerned, the Tribunal has not examined the percentage of sales to  unrelated buyers. According to the assessee the entire material was placed in  that regard before the Commissioner, but unfortunately the Tribunal has not  considered that material while deciding the question of undervaluation. On   the second ground of clandestine removal, the case of the Department is that  zinc ingots were removed at the time of clearance in the guise of zinc metallic   residue. This issue has also not been gone into by the Tribunal.

For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 6th January, 2005 and remit the matters to the Tribunal for fresh de novo consideration of the entire matter in accordance with law.  Department's Civil Appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.