2011 (9) TMI 860 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002 - appellants have issued credit notes to their customers in respect of damages to the goods - Held that - They are paying excise duty to the tune of around Rs. 4 crores per annum. As such, the same assessable value is required to be adopted at the time of clearance of the goods. Compensation given to the buyers in respect of the goods damaged subsequent to the clearance cannot result in lowering the assessable value. We also note that the appellant s buyers are the ultimate consumers of the goods and no Modvat credit is being availed by them - whatever duty paid by the appellants is refunded to them which is again used for payment of duty on the fresh final product. As such, it can be safely concluded at this interim stage that the entire excise is revenue neutral - we hold that the appellants have a good prima facie case in their favour so as to allow the stay petitions unconditionally - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty, applicability of area base exemption Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dispute regarding issuance of credit notes affecting assessable value, imposition of penalties, acceptance of appellant's plea by lower authorities, justification of appellant's contentions, revenue neutrality of excise duty.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed the issue of dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 15,62,635/- and Rs. 27,64,891/-, along with penalties imposed on the appellants. The dispute arose from the appellants' manufacturing activities of aluminium panel sheets falling under Chapter 76 in Jammu, covered by area base exemption Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. The controversy centered around the issuance of credit notes by the appellants to customers for damages to goods, leading to a disagreement with the Revenue regarding the assessable value and excise duty payment. The Revenue alleged that the goods were not damaged at the time of sale but later at the buyers' premises, where compensation was claimed. The lower authorities rejected the appellant's plea, confirming the demand and penalties.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides, sided with the appellant's arguments. Notably, the appellants paid substantial excise duty annually, around Rs. 4 crores, and contended that the assessable value at the time of clearance should remain unchanged, despite subsequent damages and compensation. It was highlighted that the buyers were end consumers not availing Modvat credit. The Tribunal observed that the duty paid by the appellants was refunded and utilized for fresh product duty payment, resulting in revenue neutrality at an interim stage. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case, allowing the stay petitions unconditionally based on the prima facie validity of their contentions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellants, emphasizing the maintenance of assessable value at the time of clearance, the lack of impact from post-clearance damages on duty payment, and the revenue-neutral nature of the excise duty process. By granting the stay petitions, the Tribunal acknowledged the strength of the appellant's case and ordered the dispensation of pre-deposit conditions and penalties, ensuring a fair resolution of the dispute.