2012 (7) TMI 386 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit Exemption notification applicant were under the bona fide belief that they are entitled for benefit of Notification No.6/2002 as amended and accordingly they were availing the benefit of the Notification and their clearances were never more than S.S.I. exemption limit even after including the clearances made to M/s.Lagan Jute Manufacturing Company, who in-turn was using the said goods in the manufacture of machines which were required for jute manufacturing - intended use was only for manufacturing in jute mills Held that - Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits and decided the appeal only on non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F - Commissioner(Appeals) is directed to decide the case on merits without insisting for any further pre-deposit from the applicants/appellants

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of Notification No.6/2002 for benefit eligibility.
3. Decision on merits by Commissioner(Appeals) without further pre-deposit.
4. Disposal of appeal and remand for hearing.

Analysis:
1. The applicants sought a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.17,69,402 and penalties under the Central Excise Act. They were engaged in manufacturing jute machinery and believed they were entitled to benefits under Notification No.6/2002. The Commissioner(Appeals) did not decide on merits but focused on non-compliance with section 35F. The Tribunal directed the main applicant to make a deposit of Rs.2,00,000 within eight weeks and report compliance.

2. The applicants argued that they supplied goods to a jute manufacturing company under the belief of eligibility for Notification No.6/2002 benefits. They contended that their clearances did not exceed the S.S.I. exemption limit, even when including supplies to another company using the goods for jute manufacturing. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide on the case's merits without requiring additional pre-deposits, keeping all issues open for further consideration.

3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of at that stage. It noted that the Commissioner(Appeals) had not decided the case on merits. Therefore, the Commissioner(Appeals) was directed to make a decision on the case's merits without insisting on further pre-deposits. The appellant was instructed to report compliance directly to the Commissioner(Appeals), with all issues being kept open for discussion and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing to be granted to the appellant.

4. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, disposing of stay petitions accordingly. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the case on its merits without requiring additional pre-deposits, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.