2005 (10) TMI 145 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the process of decatising, known as blowing, amounts to a process of manufacture.
2. Whether the process is exempted in terms of Notification No. 47/2002-C.E., dated 6-9-2002.

Analysis:
The case involved two stay applications concerning duty demands and penalties on two processing companies. The main issue was whether the process of decatising, also known as blowing, constituted a manufacturing process and if it was exempted under Notification No. 47/2002-C.E. The appellants argued that the process was previously exempted and later included in the amended notification, suggesting retrospective effect. They contended that the process was a simple steam pressing method exempt from duty. Additionally, they argued that the duty liability should be on the saree owners, not the processors, as per Rule 12B. The appellants also cited financial hardship and requested a waiver.

The JDR defended the order, emphasizing that once the process was removed from the amended notification, a strict interpretation should apply, and the appellants should pre-deposit the amounts to protect the Revenue's interest. However, upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments. It acknowledged that the process was exempted both before and after the interim period in question. The Tribunal agreed that the later notification likely had retrospective effect and that the duty liability should be on the saree owners. The Tribunal also noted the lack of show cause notice to the owners and considered the issue of limitation. Taking all factors into account, including financial hardship, the Tribunal granted full waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the amounts. The miscellaneous applications for lifting the detention order were also allowed, directing the Revenue to lift the order immediately. Due to the significant amounts involved and the waiver granted, the appeals were scheduled for an expedited hearing on a specified date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay applications of both appellants, granting a full waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of the amounts. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to lift the detention order and expedited the hearing of the appeals due to the substantial amounts and the waiver granted.