2004 (10) TMI 533 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order in appeal regarding availing exemption Notification No. 6/2000
- Allegation of collecting duty during exemption period
- Interpretation of Invoice details and exemption provisions

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the appellant availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2000 after allegedly crossing the specified limit. The Revenue contended that the appellant cleared goods at the same price after availing the exemption, demanding duty on the presumption that the appellant collected duty during the exemption period, which was not deposited as required by Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.

The respondent argued that the Invoice for goods cleared under the exemption Notification only mentioned one price without specifying Central Excise duty separately. Citing the decision in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Panchkula, the appellant emphasized that the Revenue did not dispute the absence of a separate mention of excise duty in the Invoice. The Tribunal found the ratio of the Ballarpur Industries case applicable, where it was held that when a composite price was shown while availing full exemption and goods were subsequently cleared at the same price with duty payment, it could not be assumed that excise duty was collected during the exemption period. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, as per the decision's precedent and the absence of merit in the Revenue's contentions.

The judgment, delivered by Vice-President S.S. Kang, highlighted the importance of the Invoice details and the application of exemption provisions in determining the liability of duty payment during an exemption period. The decision provided clarity on the interpretation of composite prices and the absence of separate excise duty mentions in Invoices during exemption periods, emphasizing the need for specific evidence to establish duty collection during such periods.