2005 (12) TMI 340 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of recovery of duty of Rs. 2,07,32,142.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 30/93 dated 28-2-1993 and its impact on duty payment.
3. Allegation of not passing on the benefit of exemption to customers.
4. Applicability of Section 11D regarding charging amounts in excess of revised prices.

Analysis:
The case involved the applicants seeking a stay of recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 2,07,32,142. The applicants were clearing various papers and paying duty as per the applicable rate following the issuance of Notification No. 30/93 dated 28-2-1993, which granted exemption to the paper manufactured by them. The applicants submitted revised price lists for approval, with the price increase being duly approved by the competent authority. Invoices issued by the applicants reflected the approved prices, and it was claimed that no excess amount was charged under the guise of excise duty. The revenue contended that the applicants were showing prices inclusive of duty from 28-2-93, implying that they charged duty to customers without passing on the exemption benefit.

Upon consideration, the Tribunal found that the applicants had indeed increased the price of their product post the issuance of Notification No. 30/93, and the increased price was approved. The applicants charged the same price from customers, even if inclusive of excise duty, which was nil. Therefore, it was concluded that prima facie, the applicants did not charge any excess amount beyond the revised price when the excise duty was shown as nil. Consequently, the provisions of Section 11D were deemed not applicable in this case. As a result, the Tribunal granted an unconditional stay to the applicants for the appeal hearing, given the substantial amount involved, with the appeal scheduled for a later date.

In conclusion, the stay application was disposed of accordingly, and the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant notifications, the pricing mechanism adopted by the applicants, and the absence of any prima facie evidence of overcharging in violation of Section 11D. The judgment provided clarity on the duty payment issue and the applicability of exemption benefits to customers, ensuring a fair hearing for the appeal scheduled for a future date.