2002 (12) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 101/66-C.E.
2. Interpretation of circular regarding payment of appropriate duty.
3. Binding nature of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.

Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 101/66-C.E.:
The case involved the manufacturing of Emulsifiers from captively produced exempted Organic Surface Active Agents and the question of whether the emulsifiers were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 101/66-C.E. The Commissioner held that the exemption was not available as the appellants had paid Nil duty on the inputs, which did not satisfy the basic condition of the Notification. The appellants argued that the duty demand could not be sustained based on a circular issued by the departmental authorities, which included cases of payment of duty at "Nil rate of duty" or full exemption. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's finding, stating that the product was not eligible for exemption under the said Notification due to non-payment of appropriate duty on the inputs.

Interpretation of Circular Regarding Payment of Appropriate Duty:
The appellants contended that the duty demand could not be sustained based on a circular issued by the departmental authorities, Circular No. 125/36/95-CX, dated 15-5-95. The circular clarified that even if inputs are exempted from excise duty, the exemption on the finished goods cannot be denied on that ground. The Tribunal acknowledged the circular but emphasized that the basic condition of the Notification regarding payment of appropriate duty had not been met by the appellants, leading to the denial of exemption under Notification No. 101/66-C.E.

Binding Nature of Circulars Issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs:
The Tribunal highlighted the binding nature of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and referred to Circular No. 125/36/95-CX, dated 15-5-95, which reiterated that exemption on finished goods cannot be denied even if the inputs are exempted from excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the duty demand against the appellants was contrary to the circulars of the Board on the subject. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellants based on the interpretation of the circular and the principles established by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.