2005 (9) TMI 549 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Stay Application filed by the Appellant regarding Money Credit Scheme and Central Excise Duty payment.
2. Interpretation of Board Circulars regarding Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Availability of extended period for Revenue in the absence of fraud, collusion, or mis-statement.

Analysis:

1. The Appellant filed a Stay Application concerning the Money Credit Scheme and payment of Central Excise Duty. The Appellant utilized Money Credit amounting to Rs. 4,98,35,965 for duty payment on final products, subject to a Show Cause Notice from 20-9-1991 to 30-9-1994. The Senior Advocate highlighted Circulars issued by the Board, emphasizing that if duty collected is deposited with the Government, Section 11D does not apply. The Advocate argued that the Board's Circulars provided a basis to contest the Show Cause Notice, which was not acknowledged by the Commissioner during adjudication. The Appellant contended that the extended period for Revenue action was not applicable due to full disclosure to the Revenue, seeking a Stay on duty payment.

2. The Senior Advocate referenced Board Circulars to support the Appellant's case, emphasizing that Section 11D does not apply when duty collected is deposited with the Government. The Advocate argued that utilizing Money Credit to pay duty on final products, collected from buyers, does not trigger Section 11D. The Commissioner's failure to address the Board Circulars led to the Tribunal granting a Stay in favor of the Appellant, as the Commissioner did not consider the Circulars in the decision-making process.

3. The Revenue, represented by the ld. SDR, reiterated the Commissioner's findings and suggested remanding the case for reconsideration in light of the Board Circulars. However, the Tribunal found that the Appellant established a prima facie case, noting the Commissioner's failure to address the relevant Board Circulars. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a Stay to the Appellant for the duty amount, indicating a lack of discussion on the Circulars by the Commissioner as a key factor in the decision-making process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and Circulars.