2005 (11) TMI 395 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 5/98.
2. Compliance with conditions for exemption.
3. Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance.
4. Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.
5. Direction for deposit and compliance.

Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 5/98:
The issue revolved around the duty demanded and confirmed against the appellants concerning goods cleared to a specific corporation. The appellant argued eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 5/98, citing a specific condition requiring a certificate from the authorized officer at the time of clearance. They submitted a certificate post-clearance, leading to a debate on exemption eligibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance due to the untimely submission of the certificate.

Compliance with conditions for exemption:
The appellant's representative highlighted the submission of the certificate from the relevant corporation to the authorities but emphasized the inability to comply promptly due to the handling officer's demise. On the contrary, the Respondent contended that post-clearance submission of the certificate rendered the appellants ineligible for the benefit under the notification, advocating for pre-deposit of the penalty amount.

Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance:
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals not on merits but due to non-compliance with the condition of timely certificate submission. This dismissal prevented a detailed examination of the case's merits, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of compliance with the notification's conditions.

Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty:
The Tribunal acknowledged the non-fulfillment of a prima facie case for waiving the duty amount by the appellants. Despite the lack of a strong case for exemption, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount within a set period and report compliance, allowing the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the case on its merits upon such compliance.

Direction for deposit and compliance:
The judgment directed the appellants to deposit a specific sum within a defined timeframe and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals). Upon deposit and verification of compliance, the Commissioner (Appeals) would proceed to hear the case on its merits, leading to the disposal of the appeals accordingly.