ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 724/2002-CE dated 15.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. By this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the Order-in-Original has gone beyond the terms of Show Cause Notice in confirming duty of Rs. 60,253. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the value of clearance from 5.1.1990 to 31.1.1990 was Rs. 3,34,151 and the total value of clearances of the assessee company had not crossed Rs. 15,00,000 and hence the Order-in-original was set aside. It is stated by the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed a serious error in coming to this finding. It is stated that the total value of clearances as noted in Order-in-original for January 1990 was Rs. 3,34,151.45; for February 1990 — Rs. 4,75,114.82; and for March — Rs. 9,77,653.70. The total clearance value was Rs. 17,86,919.97 as during the relevant period, the Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 permitted exemption limit of Rs. 15,00,000 only. As they had crossed the limit, the assessee were required to pay duty on the excess clearances of Rs. 2,86,920 and it worked out to Rs. 60,253. It is stated that the Show Cause Notice clearly indicated this amount and also stated that they had, during the financial year, crossed the exemption limit of Rs. 15,00,000. Therefore, the Order of the Assistant Commissioner was in terms of the Show Cause Notice and there was no variation in the duty amount claimed. Merely because the exact figure of clearance amount was not shown, that will not make the Show Cause Notice bad in law.
2. Learned DR took us to the records and pointed out that initially, the matter had been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) for de. novo consideration. On de novo consideration, the Assistant Commissioner noted that the clearance figure was more than Rs. 15,00,000 and the duty required to be paid was Rs. 60,253, as noted in the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has not gone beyond the terms of Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner has noted only the clearances of January and held that the clearance value was Rs. 3,34,151, which is not correct. The total clearances were Rs. 17,86,919.97. He submitted that the order is not legal and proper and the duty is required to be confirmed in the matter.
3. The learned Consultant argued the case at length and pointed out that the Show Cause Notice ought to have disclosed the total clearance value and merely showing the duty amount was not sufficient, However, he did not dispute the correctness of the clearance value in the Order-in-Original but merely stated that as the Show Cause Notice was not explicit in all the terms, the same was not enforceable.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we note that the Show Cause Notice clearly indicated that the assessee had crossed Rs. 15,00,000 limit set down in the Notification No, 175/86 dated 1.3.1986. Therefore, the amount had been computed and shown in the Show Cause Notice as Rs. 60,253. The amounts have not been varied in the Order-in-original. The same amount had been computed based on the total clearance value and the same has been confirmed in the Order-in-original. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assistant Commissioner has gone beyond the terms of Show Cause Notice. The Show Cause Notice has correctly computed the duty amount on the excess clearances made. Hence, it cannot be said that the Show Cause Notice was not explicit. The Assistant Commissioner has given the clearance figures in the Order-in-original. There is no dispute raised by the assessee with regard to the correctness of the clearance figures and the duty computed thereon. We are not in a position to hold that the Order-in-original proceeded beyond the terms of Show Cause Notice. The Order-in-original has confirmed the same duty amount as the one, which had been computed and arrived at in the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeal)’s Order is not legal and proper and the same is set aside by allowing the Revenue appeal.