2008 (10) TMI 457 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation based on lack of necessary certificate from specified Committee in Notification 8/04.
2. Dispute over investment certification for duty exemption under the notification.
3. Waiver of pre-deposit during pendency of the appeal.
4. Late intimation regarding engagement of Special Counsel for stay petitions.

Issue 1: Duty Demand Confirmation:
The appeal involved duty demand confirmation due to the absence of a necessary certificate from the Committee specified in Notification 8/04. The appellants argued that they had initially invested the amount for plant and machinery, with a provisional certificate issued by the Committee. However, the final extension of time was issued later, and the Committee clarified that no further certificate would be provided. The appellants contended that the Board's circular clarified that secure payment to the concerned agency would satisfy the investment condition. The Adjudicating Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, emphasizing the lack of a categorical certificate from the Committee. The Tribunal considered the provisional certificate, the secure payment made, and the Board's circular, finding a prima facie case for waiving pre-deposit until appeal disposal.

Issue 2: Investment Certification Dispute:
The dispute centered around the certification of investment for duty exemption under the notification. The appellants highlighted that the plant and machinery had been installed in their factory, informing the Adjudicating Commissioner and the State Government Secretary. They argued that the procedural condition of a certificate regarding installation should not deny them the exemption benefit. The Department supported the duty demand confirmation based on the absence of a categorical certificate from the Committee specified in the Notification.

Issue 3: Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
Regarding the waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal's pendency, the Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides. Given the provisional certificate, secure payment made, and the similarity of issues in other cases, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for all three appeals until their disposal.

Issue 4: Late Intimation of Special Counsel:
In the stay petitions related to other appeals, there was a mention of late intimation regarding the engagement of Special Counsel. Despite this, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for those cases as well, considering the repeated adjournments and the similarity of issues with the main appeal. Both parties agreed to approach the Committee for inspection of the factory premises and certification of the investment claimed, with the liberty to fix a final hearing date post the Committee's certificate availability.