2009 (8) TMI 997 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Evasion of central excise duty.
2. Wrongful availing of exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E.
3. Confiscation of goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Imposition of penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
5. Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-C.E.
6. Procedural non-compliance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Evasion of Central Excise Duty:
The case was initiated based on intelligence that the appellant no. 1 was evading central excise duty by wrongly availing exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. The officers found that the appellant was manufacturing glass beads using glass tubes without paying duty on the tubes, which were captively consumed.

2. Wrongful Availing of Exemption:
The appellants argued that the glass tubes were manufactured by a mouth-blown process, exempting them from duty under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., and that the compressor alleged by the department was used only for coloring the glass beads, not for blowing the glass tubes. The department, however, held that the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was not applicable as the final product (glass beads) was exempt from duty.

3. Confiscation of Goods:
The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the seized glass tubes under Rule 25, imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 2,75,000/-. The authority held that the appellant no. 1 was not eligible for SSI exemption as the glass tubes and glass beads did not fall under the schedule of items eligible for SSI benefits. The goods were seized for being manufactured and cleared without registration, declaration, or maintaining statutory records.

4. Imposition of Penalties:
A penalty equivalent to the duty amount was imposed on appellant no. 1 under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC, and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on appellant no. 2 under Rule 26. The appellants contested these penalties, arguing that there was no quantified duty demand, and the issue was related to the interpretation of provisions, not clandestine removal.

5. Eligibility for SSI Exemption:
The appellants contended that the glass tubes were eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-C.E. as they were specified goods under Chapter 70. The adjudicating authority, however, denied this benefit, stating that the glass tubes were used to manufacture unspecified goods (glass beads), making the SSI exemption inapplicable.

6. Procedural Non-compliance:
The appellants argued that the goods were duly accounted for, and there was no intention or preparation for clandestine removal. They also maintained that the value of clearances was within the SSI exemption limit, negating the need for registration or periodical returns.

Judgment:
The appellate authority observed that the confiscation of goods was based on the inadmissibility of SSI exemption and procedural non-compliance. It was held that the adjudicating authority misinterpreted the provisions of the SSI notification and wrongly denied the exemption to the glass tubes. The appellate authority set aside the confiscation and penalties, stating that the goods were not liable for seizure and the penalties were unwarranted. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

← Previous Next →