2014 (1) TMI 1006 - AT - Central Excise

Excisability of the commodities - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Prima facie, the view that the arguments will have to be considered at final hearing - on the premise that the aforesaid items are excisable and the appellant ought to have paid duty of excise during the period of dispute Following Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad etc. 2005 (11) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - the appellant had good reason to maintain a bonafide belief during a major part of the period of dispute that the activity did not amount to manufacture - the entire value on which duty is sought to be recovered was included by the party in the taxable value of various services and service tax paid thereon after admissible abatement - the appellants directed to pre-deposit Rupees fifteen lakhs and fifty six thousands as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver and stay of duty and penalties, excisability of commodities, plea of limitation, predeposit requirement.

Waiver and Stay of Duty and Penalties:
The judgment deals with an application seeking waiver and stay of duty amounting to Rs. 3,00,00,000 demanded from the appellant for the period from April 2003 to May 2006, along with penalties imposed. The Managing Director of the company also filed an application seeking waiver and stay in respect of the penalty imposed on him. The Tribunal considered the substantive issue of excisability of the commodities in question, such as trusses, purlins, and rafters fabricated from steel plates. The appellant argued that these items are not excisable, while the Revenue contended that they are excisable as per the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Tribunal refrained from forming a prima facie view on excisability and proceeded with the assumption that the items are excisable, indicating that the duty of excise should have been paid during the disputed period.

Plea of Limitation and Predeposit Requirement:
The appellant raised a plea of limitation, stating that conflicting decisions by different Benches of the Tribunal were resolved by a Larger Bench in November 2005. The appellant maintained a bonafide belief that the activity did not amount to manufacture for a significant part of the disputed period. The appellant suggested paying duty only for the last three months of the period, amounting to Rs. 15.56 lakhs, which could be predeposited if necessary. The Tribunal found the plea of limitation to be formidable and directed the appellants to predeposit Rs. 15,56,000 within six weeks. Compliance was to be reported to the Dy. Registrar, with a waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery granted in respect of penalties and the balance amount of duty demanded, subject to due compliance.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore addresses the key issues of waiver and stay of duty and penalties, the excisability of commodities, the plea of limitation, and the predeposit requirement. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellants to predeposit a specified amount within a set timeframe, considering the plea of limitation raised by the appellants and the complexities surrounding the excisability of the items in question. The decision reflects a balanced approach in addressing the legal and procedural aspects of the case, ensuring fair consideration of the arguments presented by both sides while upholding the principles of excise law and compliance requirements.