2004 (11) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty under Notification No. 97/91-C.E.

Analysis:
1. Waiver of Pre-deposit of Central Excise Duty and Penalty: The case involved an application by M/s. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. for the waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,88,117/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The company, being a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, had exported goods to Nepal under Notification No. 97/91-C.E. The contention was that the benefit of the notification was denied on the basis that the goods were not allowed to be sold in India, thus disallowing the concessional rate of duty. The appellant argued that since the goods were not sold in India, the Central Excise duty could not be demanded under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, and duty was payable under Section 3(1) of the Act, which was nil at the relevant time.

2. Legal Submissions and Findings: The learned Advocate representing the appellant argued that the denial of the benefit of the notification was unjustified as the goods were exported to Nepal and not sold in India. On the other hand, the learned D.R. reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order. The Tribunal considered both submissions and noted that the denial of the benefit of the notification was based on the goods not being allowed to be sold in India. The Tribunal held that the provisions of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act were not applicable in this case as they are triggered when a 100% E.O.U. is permitted to sell goods in the Domestic Tariff Area.

3. Decision and Stay Order: After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had made a strong prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal stayed the recovery of the entire amount of duty and penalty during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was scheduled for regular hearing on 1st February, 2005. This decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the specific circumstances of the case involving the export of goods under a concessional rate of duty notification.