2005 (4) TMI 477 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Chapter heading 94.03 of CETA, duty liability on installation of furniture systems, waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty following the Commissioner's order regarding the classification of goods and duty liability. The Commissioner classified work station and office furniture systems under Chapter heading 94.03 of CETA, imposing duty on M/s. Blow Plast Limited for the period 1997-98 to 2000-01. The appellant argued that they procured duty paid furniture and installed it at customers' premises, contending that duty had already been discharged by the original manufacturer. The appellant claimed that duty cannot be charged twice on the same goods. The Assistant Commissioner's order supported the appellant's position that appropriate duty had been paid on the goods. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found the appellant's contention reasonable that duty was already discharged on the goods, indicating a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that duty had been paid on the goods by the original manufacturer and that charging duty again on the same goods would be unjust. The Tribunal reviewed the Assistant Commissioner's order, supporting the appellant's claim that duty had been discharged on the goods in question. The Tribunal found the appellant's case compelling, indicating a strong prima facie case in their favor for waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of both duty and penalty, scheduling the case for regular hearing along with other similar appeals. The decision was based on the Tribunal's assessment that the appellant's argument regarding the discharge of duty on the goods was valid and warranted the waiver of pre-deposit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case centered on the classification of goods under Chapter heading 94.03 of CETA, the duty liability on the installation of furniture systems, and the appellant's request for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that duty had already been discharged on the goods in question, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. This judgment highlights the importance of considering previous duty payments and avoiding double taxation on the same goods.