2005 (6) TMI 419 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of Additional Excise Duty (AED) under Section 3 of the Additional Excise Duties (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.
2. Claim of exemption under SSI Notification No. 8/2001.
3. Request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.
4. Interpretation of the SSI exemption in relation to AED.
5. Decision on the application due to lack of representation.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the demand of Rs. 5,00,141/- towards Additional Excise Duty (AED) under Section 3 of the Additional Excise Duties (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 from the appellants. The appellants sought exemption from this duty under SSI Notification No. 8/2001. The Tribunal noted the absence of representation for the appellant and observed the adjournments in the past due to the Consultant's requests. Despite the Consultant's request for a hearing, no representation was made on the hearing date.

2. The Tribunal examined the SSI Notification No. 8/2001 and found that it exempted SSI units from payment of Basic Excise Duty (BED) but did not mention the Additional Excise Duty (AED) leviable under the Act. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that AED is independent of BED and is leviable on an ad valorem basis, making the SSI exemption inapplicable to AED. The Tribunal found this argument prima facie valid and concluded that the appellants had not established a case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty within 4 weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The appellants were instructed to report compliance by a specified date. The decision was made in the absence of representation from the appellant on the hearing date, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the directive regarding pre-deposit.

4. The judgment highlights the critical distinction between Basic Excise Duty (BED) and Additional Excise Duty (AED) concerning the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2001. It underscores the necessity for parties to establish a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, especially when seeking exemptions under specific notifications.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the relevant provisions and arguments presented. The absence of representation on the hearing date did not deter the Tribunal from making a reasoned decision regarding the pre-deposit requirement and compliance timeline. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the need for parties to substantiate their claims effectively in legal proceedings.