2009 (10) TMI 816 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty demand imposed for incomplete declaration of inputs under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. dated 10th June, 2003.

The judgment revolves around the challenge to an order passed by the Commissioner seeking a duty demand of Rs. 2,59,35,492 on the appellants for the period from October 2007 to January 2008. The duty demand was based on the appellants' failure to include the complete description of inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods, as required under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. The Commissioner noted that the Jurisdictional Range Officer had directed the appellants to provide additional information during a factory visit. Subsequently, the appellants submitted the required information on 16th October 2006 and filed a fresh declaration on 31st January 2008. The Commissioner found that the declaration in July 2006 did not meet the requirements regarding input description, but the January 2008 declaration rectified this issue. It was observed that the appellants were availing the exemption notification, filing returns with full details, and there was no evidence of intent to evade excise duty. The Commissioner highlighted the lack of vigilance on the part of departmental officers in not pointing out the deficiency earlier.

The Commissioner concluded that there was no clear evidence or intent to evade duty, and any defects in the original declaration were curable. It was noted that the departmental authorities could have been more vigilant in ensuring the necessary information was provided. Consequently, the Commissioner found that the appellants had established a prima facie case for granting a stay on the impugned order, as it would not prejudice the revenue. Therefore, the application for stay was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the duty demand was stayed. The total demand was waived until the appeal's disposal.