2006 (3) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 for goods cleared as "non-conventional energy system/device" during a specific period.
2. Whether the clearances made under separate invoices constitute clearance of "non-conventional energy system/device."
3. Whether the appellants observed the statutory procedure for piecemeal clearance of consignments.
4. Whether the financial hardships claimed by the appellants are justified based on the company's financial condition.

Analysis:

1. The lower authorities demanded duty from the appellants for a period, denying them the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 for goods cleared as "non-conventional energy system/device." The appellants claimed to be clearing an item specified in the notification, but the authorities found that the clearances were not in accordance with the requirements. The invoices issued for the goods were spread over a period, and it was noted that the components cleared did not constitute the specified system/device.

2. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not follow the statutory procedure for piecemeal clearance of consignments. Due to this non-compliance, the goods cleared were not recognized as "non-conventional energy system/device" eligible for the exemption notification. The Tribunal considered the financial hardships claimed by the appellants, supported by financial documents showing a significant accumulated loss in the company's accounts.

3. Considering the financial condition of the company, the Tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specific amount within a given timeframe. The decision was based on the information provided regarding the company's financial status, as reflected in the profit & loss accounts and balance sheets certified by a Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal set a deadline for compliance with the pre-deposit directive.

4. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures for claiming exemptions and considered the financial circumstances of the appellants in determining the pre-deposit amount required. The detailed analysis provided insight into the issues raised during the proceedings and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and submissions presented by both parties.