2008 (8) TMI 235 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants are manufacturer of wired chassis (monochrome) and the same were exempted under Notification No. 4/97 and 5/98-C.E, if the same were used in another factory for the manufacture of black and white television sets - M/s L.B. Electronics obtained CT-2 certificate authorizing such use putting quantity restrictions - Revenue is asking for duty in respect of quantity cleared over and above the quantity mentioned in the CT-2 certificate held that, after availing of concession by user, appellant (supplier) cannot contend that the quantity restriction in the CT-2 certificate is without jurisdiction

Summary

Issues: Appeal against confirmed demand under Notification No. 4/97 and 5/98-C.E for wired chassis exceeding CT-2 certificate quantity.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Demand Confirmation: The appellant challenged the demand confirmed in the impugned order related to the manufacture of wired chassis exempted from duty under specific notifications. The Revenue sought duty payment for the quantity cleared exceeding the CT-2 certificate limit obtained by M/s L.B. Electronics.

2. Validity of CT-2 Certificate Restriction: The appellant argued that the quantity restriction in the CT-2 certificate was unjustified as there was no provision in the Central Excise Rules for such limitations. They also requested the Revenue to waive this restriction, emphasizing that the goods were used by M/s L.B. Electronics for manufacturing television sets, rendering the demand unsustainable.

3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue contended that the CT-2 certificate authorized duty-free procurement of 9900 wired chassis per month, and any clearance beyond this limit should incur duty payment. They justified the demand based on the appellant exceeding the specified quantity in the CT-2 certificate.

4. Adjudication and Decision: The Tribunal observed that M/s L.B. Electronics had applied for the CT-2 certificate to receive goods without duty payment, with the condition to procure 9900 chassis monthly. The appellant cleared additional goods without duty, prompting the demand. The Tribunal held that the appellant's argument against the quantity restriction lacked merit, as the customer willingly accepted the CT-2 conditions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the excess goods cleared beyond the CT-2 certificate limit, affirming the Revenue's demand.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the core issues raised in the appeal, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's rationale for dismissing the appeal and upholding the demand for duty payment on the excess cleared goods.