2011 (7) TMI 432 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposite - SSI Exemption - Exemption Notification No.1/93-CE -benefit of notification denied as the value of clearances under Notification No.1/93, stands exceeded than the exemption limit - Appellants have used the ship breaking scrap as one of their raw materials - Further there is no dispute about the fact that such ship breaking scrap was exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No.44/93-CE - Hence, in the light of the ratio of law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries 2001 -TMI - 1709 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the inputs attracting nil rate of duty have to be considered as if they were clearly recognizable as being non duty paid. In such a scenario the condition of Notification No.202/88 does not stand fulfilled - Hence, the appellants have not been able to make out a prima-facie case in their favour so as to allow the stay petition unconditionally. - Entire amount to be deposited.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Denial of benefit under Notification No.202/88-CE
- Interpretation of conditions for exemption under Notification No.202/88-CE
- Use of ship breaking scrap as raw material
- Compliance with pre-deposit condition for appeal

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved the issue of denial of benefit under Notification No.202/88-CE to the appellant, who was engaged in manufacturing rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was availing exemptions under Notification No.1/93-CE and Notification No.202/88-CE. However, the authorities denied the benefit of Notification No.202/88-CE to the appellant, leading to a demand confirmation against them due to the value of clearances exceeding the exemption limit.

The main issue revolved around whether the denial of the benefit of Notification No.202/88-CE was justified. This notification granted full exemption of excise duty to specified final products subject to the condition that they are manufactured from specified inputs on which excise duty or additional duty of customs has been paid. The appellant used ship breaking scrap as raw material, which was exempted from duty under Notification No.44/93-CE. The authorities initiated proceedings against the appellant, raising a demand for duty for a specific period.

The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving a similar case and the Supreme Court's decision in another matter to support the denial of benefit under Notification No.202/88-CE. The Tribunal observed that inputs attracting a nil rate of duty must be considered as non-duty paid, rendering the condition of the notification unfulfilled in the appellant's case due to the use of exempted ship breaking scrap as raw material.

Regarding the compliance issue, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not established a prima facie case in their favor to allow the stay petition unconditionally. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal due to non-compliance with the stay order requiring the deposit of the entire duty amount. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount within a specified period and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal's merits.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the denial of benefit under Notification No.202/88-CE, the interpretation of exemption conditions, the use of ship breaking scrap as raw material, and the necessity of compliance with pre-deposit conditions for appeal resolution.