2014 (1) TMI 679 - AT - Central Excise

Activity amounts to manufacture or not - Affixation of brand name on imported Automobile Parts Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Notification No. 2/2006 (Entry No. 97) was clear enough and hence it cannot be argued that the appellant had reason to misunderstand the said entry - Prima facie, the extended period of limitation was not invoked in this case without a firm footing - in the event of the demanded duty having to be paid by the appellant, they would be entitled to CENVAT credit of CVD and SAD paid on the imported parts to the extent of 58% of the duty demand the plea of revenue-neutrality accepted Thus, the Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant for an impugned demand of over Rs. 6.8 crores for the period from 1.6.2006 to 06.12.2008, confirmed under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, along with a penalty equal to duty.
2. Challenge on the demand of duty on 'Automobile Parts' imported by the appellant, cleared under Heading 8507 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, and sold after affixure of brand name, based on Notification No. 2/2006-C.E. (N.T) dated 1.3.2006.
3. Argument regarding time-bar based on doubts expressed by field formations prior to the Board's clarification in December 2008.
4. Entitlement to CENVAT credit of CVD and SAD paid on imported parts to the extent of 58% of the duty demand.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for an impugned demand of over Rs. 6.8 crores for the period from 1.6.2006 to 06.12.2008, confirmed under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, along with a penalty equal to duty. The demand was challenged on the grounds of both merits and limitation. The demand was based on the premise that affixing a brand name to imported parts after clearance for home consumption amounted to manufacture, requiring duty payment on MRP basis as per Notification No. 2/2006-C.E. (N.T) dated 1.3.2006. The appellant argued that doubts expressed by field formations regarding the scope of the notification were clarified by the Board in December 2008, making the demand time-barred. The tribunal found the appellant's argument valid, indicating that the extended period of limitation was not invoked without a firm footing.

2. The appellant also contended that if the demanded duty had to be paid, they should be entitled to CENVAT credit of CVD and SAD paid on the imported parts to the extent of 58% of the duty demand. The tribunal considered the plea of revenue-neutrality raised by the appellant and the submissions of the learned Commissioner (AR). After deliberation, the tribunal agreed to take into account the plea of revenue-neutrality to the extent mentioned by the appellant.

3. In conclusion, the tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery as requested by the appellant. The decision was pronounced and dictated in the open court, resolving the issues raised in the appeal.