2011 (3) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Notification No.63/95 - exemption from payment of duty in respect of clearances made by units such as HAL, BDL, BEL etc., to Ministry of Defence - Held that - in view of the conflicting views on the subject, pre deposit waived.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No.63/95-CE for exemption from Central Excise duty.
Waiver of pre-deposit of demand of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Notification No.63/95-CE dated 16.3.1995, which provides an exemption from duty for clearances made by specific units to the Ministry of Defence. The appellant, M/s. Analogic Controls India Ltd., sought a waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.8,67,180/- and Rs. one lakh, respectively. The Adjudicating Authority had denied the exemption as the appellant was not listed as one of the specified units in the notification. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision. The appellant moved an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, citing a previous Tribunal order that granted a complete waiver for a similar dispute with the same assessee.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued for the waiver, while the SDR opposed it, referring to conflicting Tribunal decisions in other cases. The SDR highlighted a different view taken by the Delhi Bench in a specific case. The Tribunal noted the conflicting views between different benches on the entitlement of units like the appellant to the exemption benefit. While one bench believed such units were entitled to the benefit, the Delhi Bench held that only units specified in the Notification could claim the benefit. Considering the conflicting interpretations, the Tribunal decided to grant the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of dues until the appeal's disposal, aligning with its previous decision in a similar matter.

This judgment showcases the importance of consistent interpretation of legal provisions and the need to resolve conflicting views among different benches of the Tribunal. The decision to grant the waiver was based on the Tribunal's earlier stance and the presence of conflicting opinions on the issue at hand. It emphasizes the significance of legal precedents and the need for clarity in the application of exemption notifications to avoid ambiguity and ensure fair treatment for all parties involved in such disputes.