2010 (10) TMI 984 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E. to the appellants.
- Clearance of final product to SEZ units and its impact on duty payment.
- Prima facie case for grant of stay of the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The issue revolves around the denial of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E. to the appellants by the Commissioner. The appellants' final product, cement, uses clinker as an intermediate product. The notification exempts the product from excise duty, but the proviso excludes inputs used in the final product's manufacture that are exempted from duty or cleared to specified units. The appellants clear their final product to SEZ units not listed under the notification, leading to the denial of the exemption.

2. The clearance of the final product to SEZ units is crucial in determining duty payment. While goods cleared for export under bond are not considered exempted, those with nil duty rates also do not fall under the exempted category. The appellants argue that since SEZ clearances are akin to exports and not subject to actual duty payment, they have a prima facie case for a stay on the impugned order.

3. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case involving Associated Cement Co. Ltd. is referenced, highlighting the specific exemption under a different notification not applicable to the present matter. This distinction renders the cited decision irrelevant to the current scenario. Consequently, the Tribunal allows the appellants' application, waiving the demanded amount until the appeal's disposal.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the denial of exemption, the impact of SEZ clearances on duty payment, and the grant of a stay based on a prima facie case. The decision underscores the specific provisions of the exemption notification, the treatment of goods cleared to SEZ units, and the relevance of past rulings to the present case.