2004 (6) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on newsprint clearance.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 60/88-C.E.
3. Validity of Assistant Commissioner's permission.
4. Financial hardships of the company.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 15,87,566 on the appellants concerning the clearance of 1254 MTs of newsprint from their factory to their depot before transferring the goods to the buyer's premises. The department contended that the goods should have been directly removed to the buyer's premises as per Notification No. 60/88-C.E. amended by Notification No. 109/95-C.E. The department denied exemption under the notification for the newsprint cleared during a specific period. However, the Tribunal noted that the amended notification did not explicitly require direct removal to the buyer's premises from the factory, and historical permissions granted by the Assistant Commissioner were considered.

2. Regarding the interpretation of the notification, the Tribunal found that a detailed examination was necessary to determine whether the Assistant Commissioner's permission for removal of newsprint from the factory to the depot was a prerequisite for the exemption notification. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' argument that the permission and subsequent withdrawal had no impact on the exemption available for the newsprint in question. Considering the arguable case presented by the appellants and their financial hardships, the Tribunal decided to grant a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the duty amount in question, directing the appeal to be scheduled for a final hearing.

3. The validity of the Assistant Commissioner's permission was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal recognized the arguments put forth by both sides regarding the necessity and implications of the permission granted for the removal of goods. While the department argued that the permission lapsed with the amendment of the notification, the appellants contended that it did not affect the exemption under the notification. The Tribunal decided that a detailed examination of this issue would be more appropriate at the final hearing stage, considering the complexities involved.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal took into account the financial hardships faced by the company, which was registered with the BIFR and had suffered significant losses. Considering the financial difficulties and the arguable case presented by the appellants, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the duty amount, balancing the interests of the Revenue by scheduling the appeal for a final hearing on a specific date.