2007 (1) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of capital goods credit and penalty imposition under Rule 57U of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Transfer of factory under lease leading to demand of duty equivalent to capital goods credit; Invocation of extended period of limitation; Conflict of views between Tribunal decisions; Grant of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

The judgment pertains to the denial of capital goods credit and imposition of penalty under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by the lower appellate authority. The appellants installed certain capital goods in their factory during 1997-99, which was later transferred to another party under lease, resulting in the cancellation of Central Excise registration. The lower appellate authority deemed the capital goods to have been removed from the factory by the appellant on the date of the lease, leading to the demand of duty equivalent to the capital goods credit and imposition of a penalty. The authority also invoked the extended period of limitation against the appellants, who contested the demand on both merit and limitation grounds.

The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Tribunal decisions, including Jamna Auto Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Indore and Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, to argue that the change of factory ownership does not constitute the removal of goods by the previous owner. Conversely, the SDR cited the Tribunal's decision in Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad, where capital goods installed in a factory given on lease were considered removed by the manufacturer on the lease date. This conflicting interpretation of ownership change's impact on goods removal highlighted the need for a Division Bench reference, which the single judge could not make.

Given the conflicting views between different Tribunal decisions, the judge, considering the weightage of cited decisions, inclined towards granting a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. Consequently, the appeal was referred to a Division Bench for further deliberation and resolution of the issues at hand. The judgment emphasized the need for a coordinated decision on the matter due to the conflicting interpretations presented by different Tribunal decisions, underscoring the complexity and significance of the legal issues involved in the case.