2008 (4) TMI 608 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 29/2002-C.E. regarding concessional duty rate eligibility for warehoused goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, a PSU Unit, sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty related to the clearance of warehoused goods under Notification No. 29/2002-C.E. The Revenue contended that the concessional duty rate applies only to the first warehouse receiving goods from specified NE Refineries. The term "said warehouse" was crucial, as per the Revenue's interpretation, referring to the initial warehouse receiving goods. The appellant, represented by M/s. IOCL, argued that the concessional rate should apply to all products removed from the Refineries, irrespective of the warehouse. The appellant emphasized that the Notification aimed to benefit goods removed from any warehouse receiving Refinery products. The appellant relied on legal principles favoring interpretations in favor of the taxpayer, but the contentions were rejected by the authorities.

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Notification should not be strictly construed to deny benefits, emphasizing that the plain language of the Notification should prevail. He highlighted that the warehouse rules allow for goods storage in multiple warehouses, supporting the appellant's claim for benefit regardless of the warehouse. On the other hand, the JCDR contended that the exemption under the Notification applies only to goods removed from the warehouse directly receiving goods from the Refinery, justifying the denial of exemption based on this criterion.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found the Revenue's approach overly strict in denying the Notification's benefit. Acknowledging that the goods were indeed received from specified Refineries, the Tribunal noted the PSU Unit's lack of misuse allegations. The Tribunal highlighted a strong prima facie case in favor of the appellant, allowing the stay application, waiving pre-deposit, and staying recovery beyond 180 days due to the substantial revenue involved. The matter was scheduled for an expedited hearing, recognizing the significant financial implications. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, granting relief based on the interpretation of the Notification and the circumstances surrounding the case.