2008 (10) TMI 380 - HC - Central Excise

Duty - major part of the manufactured excisable goods were cleared on payment of duty - A small part was cleared without payment of duty - said clearance was covered under Notification No. 19/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997, which exempts payment of excise duty in respect of the goods cleared - For the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) to apply, there should be one final product which is dutiable and another final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to Nil rate of duty - Revenue not allowed to say that a part of the quantity of manufactured and removed from the factory, was one final product and the remaining quantity of the same final product was another final product for the purpose of levying excise duty, no merit in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the same is dismissed

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification Number 10/1997-C.E., applicability of Notification No. 19/97-C.E., Rule 57CC(1) provisions, classification of final products for excise duty purposes.

In this judgment by the Madras High Court, the court upheld the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding the interpretation of Notification Number 10/1997-C.E. related to caustic soda flakes and trichloroethylene manufactured by the assessee. The court found no illegality or irregularity in CESTAT's interpretation of the notification, emphasizing the correct application of the provisions. The judgment clarified that a major part of the manufactured goods were cleared on payment of duty, while a small portion was cleared without duty payment to specific entities under Notification No. 19/97-C.E., which exempts excise duty for goods cleared to those entities.

Regarding the application of Rule 57CC(1), the court highlighted the requirement for one final product subject to duty and another final product exempted from duty or charged at a "Nil" rate. The court emphasized that in the case at hand, it was not permissible for the Revenue to treat different quantities of the same final product as separate final products for excise duty imposition purposes. The judgment emphasized the need for a clear distinction between dutiable and exempted products under the relevant provisions.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal, affirming the findings based on the interpretation of the notifications and the classification of final products for excise duty purposes. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved, ensuring clarity on the correct application of the legal provisions and notifications in the context of the manufactured goods and duty exemptions.