2005 (3) TMI 687 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of clause in Notification 9/98 regarding excisable goods clearance for home consumption; Waiver of pre-deposit requirement and stay of recovery; Recurring nature of the issue requiring out-of-turn resolution.

Interpretation of clause in Notification 9/98 regarding excisable goods clearance for home consumption:
The judgment delves into the interpretation of a clause in Notification 9/98 concerning the aggregate value of clearance of excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer. The issue revolves around the absence of the terms "for and on behalf" in the current notification, unlike in a previous one (Notification No. 85/85) cited by lower authorities. The absence of these terms leads to a distinction highlighted in the case of CC, Bangalore v. Gammon Fan Chemicals Ltd. The Tribunal notes this marked change in terminology and indicates a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit requirement and stay of recovery, emphasizing that a holding company and a subsidiary cannot be considered the same manufacturer.

Waiver of pre-deposit requirement and stay of recovery:
The judgment finds merit in the argument for waiver of pre-deposit requirement and stay of recovery based on the interpretation of the clause in Notification 9/98. The Tribunal acknowledges the significance of the altered terms in the notification, signaling a departure from previous language used in a related case. This leads to a determination that justifies the waiver of pre-deposit and the ordering of a stay of recovery, particularly in light of the distinct entities involved, i.e., a holding company and a subsidiary, which cannot be equated as the same manufacturer.

Recurring nature of the issue requiring out-of-turn resolution:
The judgment recognizes the recurring nature of the issue at hand and the necessity for an expedited resolution. Consequently, both parties are granted the liberty to file applications, underscoring the need for a prompt and efficient handling of the matter. This decision reflects the Tribunal's proactive approach to address issues that are of a repetitive nature, ensuring that the parties involved have the opportunity to seek timely redressal.