2015 (10) TMI 1964 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption under notification no.10/96-CE dated 23.07.1996 - Held that - The benefit of the said notification is being denied to the appellant on the sole ground that their final product is Animal Feed Supplement and as such, the notification will not apply to them - At this prima facie stage, we find that the issue is covered by the Larger Bench s decision in the case of Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 1998 (9) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd reported in 2001 (7) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . We also take note of the other identical decisions of the Tribunal and are of the view that the appellant has good prima facie case on merits. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff
- Exemption under notification no.10/96-CE
- Applicability of exemption to final product
- Prima facie case assessment

Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff:
The appellant manufactures Animal Feed Supplements under the brand name "Brolay N 95," classified under Chapter 21 of the Tariff with nil rate of duty. During production, they also manufacture Niacin, a vitamin B-3 falling under Chapter 29. The appellant claimed exemption under notification no.10/96-CE, which allows exemption for all excisable goods consumed within the factory in the manufacture of Animal Feed.

Exemption under notification no.10/96-CE:
The benefit of the notification was denied to the appellant on the basis that the final product is an Animal Feed Supplement, suggesting the exemption does not apply to them. However, the Tribunal found that the issue is covered by a Larger Bench decision in Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore, upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also considered other similar decisions and concluded that the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits.

Applicability of exemption to final product:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's situation aligns with previous decisions and that they have a valid case based on the interpretation of the law. As a result, the condition of pre-deposit of dues was dispensed with, and the stay petition was unconditionally allowed.

Prima facie case assessment:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, past judgments, and the specific circumstances of the case. By considering the appellant's claim in light of established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had a strong case warranting the allowance of the stay petition without the requirement of pre-deposit.