2015 (3) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of benefit of Notification No.4/2006-CE dt. 1.3.2006 (Serial No.91) as amended and payment of duty @ 4% w.e.f. 1.4.2010 on White Duplex Board - According to the Revenue, the applicants should avail benefit of exemption under S.No.90 of the said notification and therefore they have contravened the sub-section (1A) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act - Held that - Following decision of Sripathi paper and Boards Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Tirunelveli 2013 (11) TMI 1119 - CESTAT CHENNAI - we waive predeposit of duty along with interest and penalty till disposal of the appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No.4/2006-CE, applicability of exemptions under S.No.90 and S.No.91, contravention of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Notification No.4/2006-CE and the applicability of exemptions under S.No.90 and S.No.91. The applicants, engaged in manufacturing "White Duplex Board," were availing benefits under S.No.91 of the notification, paying duty at 4% from a specific date. However, the Revenue contended that the applicants should avail the exemption under S.No.90 instead, alleging contravention of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. The crux of the dispute lies in whether the exemption under S.No.90 is absolute or not, as argued by the applicant.

The Tribunal's decision in a similar case, Sripathi Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Tirunelveli, is cited as a precedent. The Tribunal granted an unconditional stay in that case, emphasizing the differing conditions imposed by S.No.90 and S.No.91 of the notification. It was noted that the exemption under S.No.90 was not granted absolutely, unlike S.No.91. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of Board Circular No.937/27/2010-CX and the conditions specified under each serial number in the notification. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's findings were not sustainable, leading to the grant of a prima facie case for waiver of duty, interest, and penalty in the appeal.

Consequently, following the precedent set by the earlier stay order, the Tribunal in the current case waived the predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty until the appeal's disposal. The Registry was directed to link the current appeal with specific Appeal Numbers for procedural purposes. The judgment concludes with the pronouncement of the decision in open court, affirming the allowance of the stay application and the waiver of predeposit as per the Tribunal's decision in the cited case.