2012 (4) TMI 408 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the cables which were cleared in running length of 25 and 100 meters can be considered as parts, components or assembly of automobile Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty interest and penalty - Held that - The cables manufactured and cleared in running length cannot be considered as parts of battle tanks and not eligible for benefit of notification which grants exemption from payment of duty to parts of battle tanks decided in case of Incab Industries vs. CCE (2000 -TMI - 50339 - CEGAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA) - the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeal - Pre-deposit of the balance of duty, interest and penalty is waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether wires and cables cleared in running length can be considered as parts, components, or assembly of automobiles.
2. Whether the demand is time-barred due to alleged suppression with intent to evade payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The applicants filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.30,77,116. The Revenue contended that the wires and cables manufactured by the applicants are used as parts of automobiles, falling under the provisions of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the other hand, the applicants argued that the wires and cables cleared in running length are not parts, components, or assembly of automobiles, citing precedents such as Nicco Corporation Ltd. and Incab Industries. The Tribunal noted that the wires and cables cleared in specified lengths cannot be considered as parts of automobiles. Therefore, the pre-deposit of the balance of duty, interest, and penalty was waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal process.

2. The dispute also revolved around the time-barred nature of the demand, as the show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation based on alleged suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The applicants contended that they had been clearing the wires and cables by paying appropriate duty and that the allegation of suppression was not sustainable. The Revenue relied on statements from officials indicating that the wires and cables were specifically manufactured for use in automobiles and were affixed with MRP labels. However, the Tribunal found that the applicants had a strong case, and the amount already deposited was deemed sufficient for the appeal process. Consequently, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty, interest, and penalty was waived, and recovery stayed pending the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issues of whether wires and cables cleared in running length could be considered as parts of automobiles and whether the demand was time-barred due to alleged suppression. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants, citing relevant precedents and finding that the wires and cables in question did not qualify as parts of automobiles. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the allegation of suppression was not sustainable, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit of the balance of duty, interest, and penalty, with recovery stayed during the appeal process.