2011 (11) TMI 561 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - breach of a condition thereto - Held that - prima facie, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of notification inasmuch as the entire credit on inputs used in body building was reversed by them before issuance of the show-cause notice. Hence, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amount adjudged against them - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in relation to duty and penalty under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., breach of Condition No. 9 regarding Cenvat credit on inputs used in body building activity.

Analysis:
1. The case revolves around an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 33,51,260/- each, related to the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The dispute arises from the appellant's alleged breach of Condition No. 9, which prohibits the availing of Cenvat credit on inputs used in body building. The duty demand pertains to 55 motor vehicles supplied to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, where the appellant built bodies on duty-paid chassis without taking Cenvat credit but utilized other duty-paid inputs for body building, subsequently reversing the credit before the issuance of the show-cause notice.

2. The appellant's contention is that by reversing the Cenvat credit on the inputs in question, they complied with Condition No. 9, thereby warranting the grant of the exemption under Sl. No. 39 of the notification. On the contrary, the respondent argues that the breach of Condition No. 9 existed at the time of vehicle clearance, justifying the orders issued by the original and appellate authorities. The key point of contention remains the timing of compliance with Condition No. 9 in relation to the reversal of Cenvat credit.

3. Upon a thorough evaluation of the submissions, the Tribunal finds that the appellant, by reversing the entire credit on inputs used in body building before the show-cause notice, has met the requirements of Condition No. 9. Consequently, the Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the adjudged amount. This decision is based on the fulfillment of the condition precedent for availing the exemption under the notification, despite the initial denial by the adjudicating authority and the appellate bodies.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment highlights the significance of timely compliance with statutory conditions for availing exemptions under notifications, emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence in indirect tax matters to avoid adverse duty demands and penalties.