2007 (4) TMI 570 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03.
2. Confirmation of duty.
3. Imposition of penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03:

The appellants, M/s Charu Steels Ltd., and its directors, contended that they were entitled to excise duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03. They argued that they had undertaken substantial expansion of their unit by increasing the installed capacity by more than 25% through modernization and installation of new machinery, including a new 5-ton furnace and other requisite infrastructure equipment. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption, stating that the expansion did not involve the installation of additional plant and machinery but rather the replacement of existing machinery.

The judgment emphasized that the notification's language did not specify the manner of achieving substantial expansion, only that the installed capacity must increase by at least 25%. It referenced the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) Circular No. 772/5/2004-CX dated 21-1-2004, which clarified that substantial expansion could result from modernization if it led to a 25% increase in installed capacity. The judgment also noted that similar cases, such as Purshottam Industries Ltd., had been granted exemption under similar circumstances.

2. Confirmation of Duty:

The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for central excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,15,765.00 and education cess of Rs. 34,315.00 for the period from 5-1-05 to 31-1-05, asserting that the appellants did not fulfill the conditions of the notification regarding substantial expansion. The appellants argued that they had increased their production capacity by more than 25% and had complied with all necessary procedures and documentation, including certificates from a Chartered Engineer and the General Manager of the District Industries Centre.

The judgment found that the appellants had indeed increased their installed capacity by more than 25% through modernization and replacement of critical machinery, meeting the notification's requirements. Consequently, the demand for duty was deemed unsustainable.

3. Imposition of Penalty:

Penalties were imposed on the appellants and their directors for allegedly violating provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants contended that there was no intent to evade duty and that they had availed of the exemption in good faith. They cited case laws such as Acon's Construction Product v. CCE, Chennai and Fiber Foils Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, which supported their position that penalties should not be imposed in the absence of intent to evade duty.

The judgment concluded that since the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03, the imposition of penalties was not justified. The appellants had acted in good faith, believing they were entitled to the exemption, and had followed the necessary procedures.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed, granting the appellants the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10-6-03. The demand for duty, interest, and penalties was set aside, and consequential relief was provided to the appellants.