2012 (2) TMI 428 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 1-3-1995 - Extension for intermediate product - Held that - appellants is eligible for benefit under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, although the final goods are exempted - appellants satisfy all conditions specified in Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), issued under the said Rule - appellant is eligible for benefit of Rule 19 and the major procedural requirements have been complied with. Therefore, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of the appeal and there shall be stay on collection of such amounts during the pendency of the appeal - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether excise duty should be paid at the intermediate stage between stainless steel flats and utensils.
2. Eligibility for benefit under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Fulfillment of conditions specified in Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.).
4. Consideration of procedural requirements for waiver of pre-deposit of dues.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the question of whether excise duty should be paid at the intermediate stage between stainless steel flats and utensils. The Revenue argued that exemption for stainless steel utensils does not extend to the intermediate product, stainless steel pattas and patties. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants exported stainless steel utensils, which are exempt from excise duty unconditionally. It was noted that the demand was not confirmed for certain clearances, as details were not specified in the show cause notice.

2. The Counsel for the appellants contended that they were eligible for benefit under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite the final goods being exempted. The conditions specified in Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) were claimed to have been fulfilled by the appellants. The Tribunal considered these arguments and found that the appellants satisfied the major procedural requirements, leading to a grant of waiver of pre-deposit of dues for the admission of the appeal, with a stay on the collection of such amounts during the appeal's pendency.

3. The learned AR for Revenue emphasized that the final product was exempt from excise duty and argued that the appellants did not meet the conditions outlined in Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), stating that these conditions were not mere formalities. However, the Tribunal observed that the demand could not be confirmed due to lack of specifics regarding certain clearances, as mentioned earlier in the judgment.

4. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal was inclined to believe that the appellants were indeed eligible for the benefit of Rule 19 and had complied with the major procedural requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for the admission of the appeal, with a stay on the collection of such amounts during the appeal's pendency. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing relief to the appellants during the legal proceedings.