2008 (1) TMI 802 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application seeking stay of demand for payment of excise duty on a product classified as insecticide.
2. Interpretation of the term "insecticide" in relation to the product in question.
3. Rejection of stay application based on technical nature of the submission and lack of prima facie strong case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a stay on the demand for payment of excise duty totaling Rs. 1,05,482.28, contending that the product, Dermitol, produced by them should not be classified as an insecticide. The liability was imposed based on the premise that Dermitol is an insecticide, and the factory premises' exemption from central excise did not apply to activities involving insecticides as per Notification No. 50/2003.

2. The appellant argued that for a product to be considered an insecticide, it must cause the death of insects by consumption, not suffocation. They referenced the schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968, which did not list Dermitol as an insecticide. However, the Tribunal held that the Act's purpose is to regulate insecticides to prevent risks to humans or animals, and the schedule's contents do not determine the levy of central excise. The Tribunal concluded that the technical nature of the argument required detailed consideration during the final hearing.

3. The Tribunal rejected the stay application, stating that no prima facie strong case for granting a stay had been established. The appellant was directed to pay the amount within two months, with compliance to be reported by a specified date. The decision was made based on the intricacies of the technical argument, indicating that a detailed examination would be necessary during the final hearing.