2009 (6) TMI 708 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of the impugned order dated 23-9-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune.
2. Denial of exemption to the appellant under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003.
3. Interpretation of the expression "in connection with the manufacture" under Notification No. 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-1981.
4. Changes in the meaning of "capital goods" over time.
5. Grant of waiver in relation to the penalty amount.
6. Binding nature of previous tribunal orders.
7. Direction to deposit the entire amount of duty within a specified period.

Analysis:

1. The applicants sought a stay of the impugned order demanding customs duty and penalty. The order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune, dismissing the appeal against the Joint Commissioner's order. The Joint Commissioner had demanded customs duty, interest, and imposed a penalty for violation of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003.

2. The learned Consultant for the applicants argued that the authorities erred in denying the exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. The argument was based on a previous Tribunal order and the evolving interpretation of the term "goods" to include various equipment required for manufacturing.

3. The Apex Court's decision in a related matter emphasized the importance of interpreting the term "in connection with the manufacture." The Court clarified that not all assets are considered capital goods, and the specific business context must be considered. This interpretation was applied to the present case, indicating a lack of merit in the appellant's claim for total waiver.

4. The contention regarding changes in the meaning of "capital goods" was deemed insufficient without specific examples or comparisons. The Consultant failed to provide a satisfactory response to this query, weakening the appellant's argument.

5. An arguable point was raised concerning the interpretation of "in connection with production" under Notification No. 52/2003. While the waiver was partially granted for the penalty amount, it was rejected for the duty demand.

6. The Tribunal's previous order in the appellant's case was deemed non-binding and insufficient to support a total waiver of the duty demanded. The order passed in a stay application did not establish a legal precedent for the current case.

7. The applicants were directed to deposit the entire duty amount within a specified timeframe, with compliance required by a set date. The application for stay was disposed of accordingly, with partial relief granted for the penalty amount but not for the duty demand.