2004 (2) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Miscellaneous application for retention of appeal before the Bench.
2. Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and stay of recovery proceedings.
3. Consideration of whether notional interest on advances is includible in determining the assessable value.

Issue 1: Miscellaneous Application for Retention of Appeal
The miscellaneous application was filed by the party seeking retention of the appeal before the Bench. The application was allowed for retention as the Departmental Representative had no objection to it.

Issue 2: Stay Application for Waiver of Pre-deposit
The applicants filed a stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 9,93,37,955/- and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with a stay of the recovery proceedings. The Advocate for the applicants argued that a strong prima facie case was in favor of the party. He highlighted the issue of whether notional interest on advances should be included in determining the assessable value. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case, CCE, Mumbai-III v. ISPL Industries, to support the argument. The Commissioner had also dropped proceedings for the subsequent period, as evidenced by an Order-in-Original, indicating a favorable view towards the party's position. The Departmental Representative had no information regarding any appeal filed by the Department against the subsequent order. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Bench found a strong prima facie case in favor of the party and granted the stay application unconditionally.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Notional Interest in Assessable Value
The issue of whether notional interest on advances should be included in determining the assessable value was a key point of contention. The Advocate for the applicants argued that the Supreme Court had ruled on a similar matter in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III v. ISPL Industries, stating that notional interest on advances should not be included in the assessable value. The Commissioner's subsequent order also supported this argument, leading to the Bench's decision to grant the stay application.

This judgment showcases the importance of legal precedents, such as Supreme Court rulings, in influencing decisions related to the assessable value in excise matters. The application of legal principles and past judgments played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the stay application in this case.