2009 (3) TMI 660 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of exemption Notification No. 8/03-C.E. dated 1-3-03 for goods bearing a brand name in a rural area.
2. Denial of benefit of rural area by Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of certificate from Tehesildar or sub-divisional Magistrate.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolved around the eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 8/03-C.E. dated 1-3-03 for goods bearing a brand name in a rural area. The notification specified that the exemption does not apply to goods bearing a brand name unless manufactured in a factory located in a rural area. The original authority allowed the benefit based on a certificate from the Sarpanch of Gram Palda village confirming the factory's location in a rural area. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit, citing the absence of a certificate from Tehesildar or sub-divisional Magistrate as required by the notification.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the applicant's factory was not in a rural area due to the lack of evidence supporting its location. However, the Tribunal noted that the notification did not specify the requirement of a certificate from Tehesildar or sub-divisional Magistrate. The original authority had verified the certificate from the Sarpanch, and the Assistant Commissioner confirmed its contents. Additionally, the applicant had already deposited the duty and penalty as per the original authority's order. Considering these factors, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for a total waiver of the balance amount of duty and penalties. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all stay applications and waived the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty until the appeal's disposal.