2005 (12) TMI 405 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty under Rule 57F(3) denied by lower authorities.
2. Proper consideration of assessee's claim under Rule 57F(3).
3. Requisite declarations under Rule 56B not filed by assessee.
4. Entitlement to duty-free clearance of castings to job workers under Rule 57F(3).
5. Application of Supreme Court judgment in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation.
6. Filing of requisite declarations under Rule 57F(3) during the disputed period.
7. Clearances made under Rule 57F, not Rule 56B.
8. Procedure under Rule 56B not followed.
9. Assessee following procedure under Rule 57F(3) and claiming benefit.
10. Prima facie case made out by assessee.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI addressed the issue of the demand of duty under Rule 57F(3) that was denied by the lower authorities to the assessee. The counsel for the assessee argued that their claim under Rule 57F(3) was not properly considered by the authorities. The demand was based on the finding that the requisite declarations under Rule 56B were not filed. The assessee contended that they were entitled to duty-free clearance of castings to job workers under Rule 57F(3), which was not taken into account. The tribunal noted the reliance placed by the SDR on the Supreme Court's judgment in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation, emphasizing that failure to follow statutory procedures could lead to denial of benefits. However, after reviewing the submissions and declarations filed by the counsel, the tribunal found that the assessee had indeed been filing the requisite declarations under Rule 57F(3) during the disputed period. It was observed that the clearances were made in accordance with Rule 57F, not Rule 56B, contrary to the basis of the duty demand. The tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had followed the procedure under Rule 57F(3) and was entitled to claim the benefit, thus granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of duty recovery based on the strong prima facie case presented by the assessee.