9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1108 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of benefit of Notification No. 6/06-CE Factory address of the applicant not mentioned - Waiver of Pre-deposit - Penalty u/s 11AC of CEA, 1944 Held that - Prima facie, The applicant has clearly mentioned the purchase orders against which the goods were supplied to M/s. NTPC by the applicant - the applicant could able to show that the NTPC has accepted the completion of the project and supply of the goods to the project Thus the applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues - the dues waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal stay granted.
Issues:
- Application for waiver of pre-deposit and penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 based on denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. Analysis: The case involved an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.4,35,488/- and an equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. The appellant had supplied storage batteries to a project and availed exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The dispute arose as the factory address of the appellant was not mentioned in the purchase order, leading to the denial of the exemption. The appellant argued that the purchase order referred to their marketing office address, and in the clearance documents like excise invoices, they had clearly mentioned the purchase order against which the goods were supplied. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal). Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the denial of benefit under the notification was solely due to the absence of the factory address in the purchase order. However, they observed that in the clearance documents, the appellant had explicitly linked the goods to the purchase orders. Additionally, it was noted that the appellant was able to demonstrate that the project had been completed and the goods were supplied to the project. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the dues adjudged and stayed the recovery during the appeal process. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
