2004 (4) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. is available to the goods manufactured by M/s. Maize Products.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Benefit of Exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E.
The appeal filed by M/s. Maize Products questioned the availability of exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. for the goods they manufactured. The Appellants manufactured various products falling under sub-heading 1703.90 and claimed the benefit of the said notification. The Revenue disallowed the benefit, arguing that the Appellants failed to prove that the products were used in the manufacture of goods other than alcohol, a condition for availing the exemption. The Appellants contended that the notification did not mandate furnishing proof or a certificate regarding the use of the products, emphasizing the absence of a prescribed authority for issuing such a certificate. They referred to a similar case, C.C.E., Ahmedabad v. Maize Products [1997 (94) E.L.T. 651], to support their argument.

Issue 2: Burden of Proof
The Departmental Representative argued that the burden lay on the Appellants to demonstrate that the products were not used in the manufacture of alcohol to qualify for the exemption. However, upon examination, it was found that Notification No. 5/99 did not specify any conditions in Column 6 regarding the use of the goods for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the exemption was available to the Appellants without any conditions to be satisfied. The Central Government did not require the Appellants to prove that the goods cleared by them under the exemption were for use in the manufacture of goods other than alcohol. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Department sought to disallow the benefit of the notification, they needed to prove that the goods had been used in the manufacture of alcohol, which they failed to do. Referring to a previous case involving Maize Products [1997 (94) E.L.T. 651], the Tribunal highlighted that the notification did not prescribe conditions regarding the end use of the exempted goods. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of M/s. Maize Products.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, showcases the interpretation of the exemption notification and the burden of proof in determining the eligibility for exemption under the specified conditions.