9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 62 - HC - Central ExciseStay - Tribunal directed to pre deposit 50% - goods produced in India are supplied against International Competitive Bidding. - exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus - procedural lapse - held that - In the absence of clear finding that the same goods are exempt under the Notification No.6 of 2006 CE, the production of the essentiality certificate cannot be taken as a mere procedural lapse. The essentiality certificate was necessary for availing the exemption. In the present case Tribunal has exercised its discretion on the consideration of the prima facie case and found justification to direct deposit of 50% of the duty demand confirmed against the appellant - Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction fairly and reasonably. The appellant will get relief, if he succeeds finally in the appeal. - decided against the assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of exemption notifications under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Validity of directing deposit of 50% of adjudged duty. 3. Applicability of exemption of Central Excise duty in terms of specific notifications. 4. Consideration of procedural lapses in availing exemptions. 5. Exercise of discretion in granting stay pending disposal of matters. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of exemption notifications under the Central Excise Act, specifically Notification No.21/2002-Cus and Notification No.6 of 2006. The appellant raised questions regarding the applicability of these notifications to goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding and the conditions required for availing full exemption from Customs duty in such cases. 2. Another significant issue was the validity of the direction given by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT) to deposit 50% of the adjudged duty. The Tribunal considered the merits of the matter and held that the appellant must deposit this amount within a specified time frame, pending the final hearing of the appeal. 3. The appellant also contested the denial of the benefit of exemption of Central Excise duty under Notification No.6 of 2006, citing procedural lapses. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty imposed but found that the appellant had failed to establish the necessary conditions for claiming exemption under the said notification. 4. The issue of procedural lapses in availing exemptions was crucial in this case. The Tribunal noted that the production of a certificate from the designated authority, as required by the notifications, was essential for claiming exemptions. The failure to produce this certificate was not considered a mere procedural lapse, as it was a prerequisite for availing the exemptions. 5. Lastly, the judgment delved into the exercise of discretion in granting stay pending the disposal of matters. The Tribunal's decision to direct the deposit of 50% of the duty demand was upheld, considering the prima facie case presented by the appellant. The principles relating to the grant of stay were discussed, emphasizing the need for a judicial exercise of discretion in such matters. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had exercised its jurisdiction fairly and reasonably. The appellant was granted an extended time frame to deposit the required amount, with the understanding that success in the appeal would result in relief for the appellant.
|
