2005 (9) TMI 358 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties imposed under a common adjudication order.
2. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for goods supplied to World Bank Funded Project.
3. Denial of benefit due to late production of certificate.
4. Dispute over excisability of goods in question.
5. Production of necessary certificate after the decision of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The three appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI were filed by different applicants seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties imposed under a common adjudication order. The Tribunal had earlier held that the ready mix concrete manufactured by the applicants is excisable and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the demand.

2. The applicants contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., exempting goods supplied to World Bank Funded Projects from duty on production of a certificate from the competent authority. They argued that although necessary certificates were produced before the adjudicating authority, they were not accepted as they were submitted after the clearance of the goods. Citing a Tribunal decision, they asserted that late submission of the certificate should not result in denial of the exemption.

3. The Revenue's stance was that since the applicants failed to produce the certificate at the time of goods clearance, they were not entitled to the benefit under the notification. This disagreement over the timing of certificate submission formed a crucial aspect of the case.

4. The dispute also revolved around the excisability of the goods in question. The applicants claimed that they were under the impression that the goods were not excisable at the time of clearance and only produced the certificate after the Tribunal's decision upheld their excisability. This disagreement with the Revenue's position led to further legal proceedings, including an appeal before the Supreme Court.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal considered the production of the requisite certificate issued by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, confirming the World Bank financing and Government approval of the project. Relying on a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal found that the benefit of the notification should not be denied solely due to the belated submission of the certificate. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants, waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalties for the hearing of the appeal, and allowing their stay petitions.