9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 841 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of condition of pre-deposit of Excise duty - benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004 - Manufacturing of tents - Held that - On perusal of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. we find that this notification nowhere says that benefit of exemption in relation to articles of textile would be available to the extent of the textile material used in manufacture of such articles. Therefore prima facie we find merit in the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the appellant and there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant accordingly we allow the stay application and recovery pursuant to the impugned order is also stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of Excise duty amount and penalty based on Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. for tents comprising cotton fabric and aluminium support structure. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing tents with cotton fabric and aluminium support, cleared tents without paying excise duty under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. The department issued a show cause notice disputing the exemption due to the presence of aluminium support, demanding duty of Rs. 5,83,887 with interest and penalty. The Additional Commissioner upheld the demand and penalty, which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit, citing the notification exempting textile articles from excise duty if Cenvat credit on inputs was not availed. The appellant argued that since tents are textile articles and no Cenvat credit was taken, they were entitled to the exemption. In contrast, the respondent contended that excise duty was applicable on the metallic part of the tents, justifying the demand. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the notification did not specify the extent of exemption for textile material used in manufacturing articles. However, considering the appellant's case and the absence of Cenvat credit, the Tribunal acknowledged a prima facie case in favor of the appellant. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the stay application and suspended recovery pending appeal, listing the appeal for further proceedings.
|
