2001 (8) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 59/90 not granted by Commissioner.
2. Whether the item in question is eligible for the benefit of the notification.
3. Interpretation of the term "building" under the notification.
4. Consideration of judgments in similar cases.
5. Time-barred demands and penalty imposition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellants contested the Order-in-Original No. 5/2000, where the Commissioner denied the benefit of Notification No. 59/90 and upheld duty demands along with penalties. The Commissioner distinguished previous Tribunal judgments, leading to the aggrieved appeal.

Issue 2: The Tribunal, in Stay Order No. 214/2001, acknowledged the relevance of the judgment in a similar case involving K.S. & Company. The Tribunal clarified that the item in question was covered by the notification, emphasizing the importance of earlier Tribunal decisions in similar matters.

Issue 3: The Deputy Commissioner argued that the benefit of the notification was limited to buildings and not applicable to Railway bridges. However, the consultant referenced the judgment of K.S. & Co., asserting that the term "building" encompasses structures like bridges used by railways.

Issue 4: The Tribunal's analysis in the case of K.S. Swamy & Co. highlighted that the appellants had informed the authorities about manufacturing cement articles supplied to railways, thus setting aside demands beyond the statutory period and associated penalties. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants based on the applicability of Notification No. 59/90.

Issue 5: Upon review of submissions and previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to comply with the remand order to reconsider the issue in light of relevant precedents. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief in accordance with the law.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision in this case centered on the correct interpretation of the notification, application of precedents, and adherence to statutory timelines, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the Commissioner's order and granting relief to the appellants.