2013 (10) TMI 1044 - AT - Central Excise

Activity Manufacture OR Not Waiver of Pre-deposit - Appellant prepared branded Motor spirit and branded HSD in their depots by blending duty paid Motor spirit and duty paid HSD with Multifunctional additives (MFAs) Held that - Following Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Delhi & Rohtak 2008 (9) TMI 154 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Blending of MS/HSD with MFA to make branded MS/HSD which sell at a premium only improves the quality of the product, and this process, would not amount to manufacture Prima facie the applicants are able to make out a case for total waiver of duty and penalty - Pre-deposit of all dues waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. Dutiability of Xtra Mile and regular Motor Sprit: The issue in the present case revolves around the dutiability of products like Xtra Mile and regular Motor Sprit, which are converted to Xtra Premium and Xtra Mile by adding multi-functional additives. The applicant's consultant argued that the addition of such additives does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The consultant cited previous Tribunal cases where similar appeals were allowed, indicating a precedent in favor of the applicant's position.

2. Acceptance by Revenue: The Revenue's representative acknowledged that the demand in the current case is based on similar facts as those decided in previous Tribunal cases. This acknowledgment by the Revenue further strengthens the argument put forth by the applicant regarding the non-dutiability of the products in question.

3. Prima-facie Case for Waiver: Upon considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the precedents cited, the Tribunal found that the issue in the present case aligns with the facts and circumstances of the cases where appeals were allowed previously. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants have established a prima-facie case for the total waiver of duty and penalty. As a result, the Tribunal granted the waiver of predeposit of all dues adjudged and stayed the recovery during the appeal's pendency, thereby allowing the stay petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, precedents, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.