2008 (9) TMI 760 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Central Excise Duty exemption under Notification Nos. 6/1997-C.E. and 23/2003-C.E.
2. Requirement of maintaining specific registers under Circulars for units working under Notification No. 8/1997-C.E.
3. Verification of evidences regarding the use of indigenous raw materials for manufacturing impugned goods sold in the DTA.
4. Remand of the matter to the Original Authority for fresh consideration.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Appellants, a 100% EOU manufacturing jute yarn and twine, contended that their sales of jute yarn and twine in the DTA were exempt from Central Excise Duty under Notification Nos. 6/1997-C.E. and 23/2003-C.E. The Appellants argued that their case did not fall under Notification No. 8/1997-C.E., as the impugned goods were charged nil duty under the Tariff from 1992 onwards. They emphasized that maintaining registers specified under Circulars for units under Notification No. 8/1997-C.E. was unnecessary. The Appellants requested a remand for verifying evidences proving the use of indigenous raw materials for manufacturing the goods.

2. The Revenue acknowledged that Notification No. 8/1997-C.E. was irrelevant since the impugned goods were not dutiable during the relevant period. The Revenue agreed that insisting on maintaining registers specified under Circulars related to Notification No. 8/1997-C.E. was not applicable to the Appellants' case. However, the Revenue sought an opportunity to examine the evidences provided by the Appellants regarding the use of indigenous materials.

3. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants were not required to maintain the specified registers under Circulars linked to Notification No. 8/1997-C.E. The Tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh decision based on the evidence presented by the Appellants. The Appellants were instructed to prove that the goods sold in the DTA were indeed manufactured from indigenous raw materials to qualify for the exemptions under Notification Nos. 6/1997-C.E. and 23/2003-C.E. The Original Authority was mandated to provide a fair hearing to the Appellants before issuing a new order.

4. The Tribunal refrained from addressing other legal grounds raised by the Appellants, such as the issue of limitation, due to the remand order. If the Appellants fail to demonstrate eligibility for exemptions under the specified Notifications, they were permitted to raise additional legal arguments in subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for further examination and decision by the Original Authority.