2017 (4) TMI 893 - AT - Central Excise

Compounding scheme - Aluminum Circles - N/N. 34/2001 CE dated 28/06/2001, as amended - whether the compounding facility have been rightly rejected? - whether the appellant is liable to pay Central Excise duty on removal of the scrap during the period of dispute June, 2003 to March, 2006? Held that - there is no cotumacious conduct on the part of the appellant in not paying the duty on Aluminum Circles, their intermediate product. The appellants were holding the bona-fide belief that as the final product is not taxable, accordingly, they need not pay the tax nor required to register with the Department - the appellant have paid the duty by opting for the compounding scheme, soon after, the inspection and much before the issue of SCN under proper intimation to the Revenue. There is no ostensible reason for rejecting the compounding facility for payment of duty on Aluminum Circles, given by the courts below. The reason given for rejection of exemption on removal of scrap when the final product is not liable to duty, is far-fetched and amounts to stretching the law which is not permissible - the appellant is entitled to the compounding facility under N/N. 34/2001-CE, and they have rightly paid the duty - the appellants are also not required to pay duty on the Aluminum Scrap removed, in terms of N/N. 89/95-CE. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of compounding facility under Notification No. 34/2001 CE for payment of duty on Aluminum Circles.
2. Liability to pay Central Excise duty on removal of scrap during the period of dispute June, 2003 to March, 2006.

Analysis:

1. Rejection of Compounding Facility for Aluminum Circles:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Aluminum Utensils and Aluminum Circles, faced the issue of the rejection of the compounding facility under Notification No. 34/2001 CE for payment of duty on Aluminum Circles. The Revenue alleged that the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedures under the notification. However, the appellant contended that they had paid duty under the compounding scheme, depositing an amount of &8377; 3,40,000 for the period June, 2003 to March, 2006. The appellant argued that they were entitled to choose the more favorable notification, citing a Division Bench ruling. The Tribunal found that the appellant acted in good faith, believing the final product was not taxable, and promptly paid the duty after inspection. The rejection of the compounding facility was deemed unjustified, and the appellant was held entitled to the compounding facility, having correctly paid the duty.

2. Liability on Removal of Scrap:
Regarding the liability to pay Central Excise duty on the removal of scrap during the disputed period, the Revenue contended that since the appellant also manufactured Aluminum Circles, which attract duty, they were liable to pay duty on the removal of scrap. The appellant argued that as they were exempted from duty on Aluminum Utensils, the removal of scrap should also be exempted. The Tribunal observed that there was no deliberate default by the appellant in paying duty on Aluminum Circles, and the rejection of exemption on scrap removal was deemed unfounded. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not required to pay duty on the Aluminum Scrap removed, based on Notification No. 89/1995 CE. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal on both issues of the rejection of the compounding facility for Aluminum Circles and the liability to pay duty on the removal of scrap, stating that the appellant had acted in good faith and had complied with the relevant regulations.