2005 (1) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of duty for non-submission of re-warehousing certificate within the specified time limit.
- Dispute over duty amounting to Rs. 38,432/- for goods supplied to hospitals without payment of duty.
- Delay in obtaining re-warehousing certificate for goods supplied to a 100% E.O.U.
- Interpretation of conditions stipulated in the Notification for exemption benefits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of duty for non-submission of re-warehousing certificate within the specified time limit
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand of duty due to the non-production of the re-warehousing certificate within the time limit specified in Rule 156A(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Appellants did not dispute a portion of the duty amount and had paid it. The Tribunal upheld the demand for the undisputed amount of duty. However, it remanded the matter related to goods involving duty of Rs. 38,432/- to the Adjudicating Authority for further examination to determine if these goods were indeed supplied to hospitals without payment of duty.

Issue 2: Dispute over duty amounting to Rs. 38,432/- for goods supplied to hospitals without payment of duty
The Appellants argued that duty for supplies made to hospitals should not be paid for non-submission of re-warehousing particulars, citing a previous Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not clearly establish that the goods in question were supplied to hospitals. The matter was referred back to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed examination and decision.

Issue 3: Delay in obtaining re-warehousing certificate for goods supplied to a 100% E.O.U.
The Tribunal considered the delay in obtaining the re-warehousing certificate for goods supplied to a 100% E.O.U. The Appellants submitted the certificate after the stipulated 90 days. The Tribunal observed that the condition of 90 days for producing the certificate of re-warehousing is flexible, as per Rule 156B. Since the Appellants eventually produced the certificate, no duty was deemed payable, and the demand of Rs. 1,69,356/- was set aside.

Issue 4: Interpretation of conditions stipulated in the Notification for exemption benefits
The Tribunal discussed the conditions stipulated in the Notification for exemption benefits and referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing strict compliance with such conditions. However, in this case, as the Appellants had eventually produced the re-warehousing certificate, the Tribunal ruled that no duty was payable based on the flexibility of the 90-day requirement. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the Appellants, setting aside the duty amounting to Rs. 1,69,356/-.