2017 (4) TMI 1546 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption from Excise Duty - fly ash bricks - case of appellant is that no prescribed form was made available by the jurisdictional Commissioner - HELD THAT - The appellant was using more than 40% of fly ash in manufacture of bricks and entire record was maintained in ER-4 which was also produced before the lower authorities - For fulfilling the Condition No. 36, N/N. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, the jurisdictional Commissioner has not made any form published in form or manner where information was required. When it is so, the information supplied by the appellant in ER-4 was sufficient pertaining to fly ash brick which is exempted from the duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appellant challenging order demanding excise duty on fly ash bricks
- Compliance with Notification No. 06/2002-CE, condition 36
- Sufficiency of information supplied by the appellant

Analysis:
1. Appellant's Challenge: The appeal was filed against the order demanding excise duty on fly ash bricks manufactured alongside sponge iron. The appellant argued that the prescribed form for submission of information under Notification No. 06/2002-CE was not available during the disputed period, thus no information was submitted as required.

2. Compliance with Notification No. 06/2002-CE: The appellant maintained records showing the use of over 40% fly ash in brick manufacturing, meeting the exemption criterion of more than 25% fly ash content. The jurisdictional Commissioner had not specified a form or manner for information submission, leading to a lack of clarity on compliance with Condition No. 36 of the notification.

3. Sufficiency of Information: The tribunal found that the information provided by the appellant in ER-4 records was adequate regarding the fly ash bricks exempted from duty. Since no specific form or manner was prescribed by the Commissioner for submission of information during the disputed period, the tribunal concluded that the information in ER-4 sufficed to demonstrate compliance with the exemption condition.

4. Judgment: After considering submissions and records, the tribunal held that the appellant's information in ER-4 was satisfactory to establish compliance with the exemption criteria for fly ash bricks. Consequently, the impugned order demanding excise duty was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.

5. Conclusion: The tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of clarity in compliance requirements under notifications and recognized the sufficiency of existing records in demonstrating adherence to exemption conditions. By setting aside the order, the tribunal affirmed the appellant's position regarding the exemption from excise duty on fly ash bricks manufactured during the disputed period.