2010 (3) TMI 517 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - the appellant cleared parts manufactured by them to EPCG Licence holders without payment of Central Excise duty on invalidation of EPCG licences. The department took-up investigations and in the impugned order duty demand for Rs. 66, 63, 270/- with interest and penalty has been confirmed. The appellants submitted that the clearances were made under proper documents and with the knowledge of the department. Clarification issued by Ministry of Commerce Policy Circular No. 5/2005 dated 13.5.2005 and CBEC Letter dated 17.02.2006 and considering number of Tribunal decisions customs duty to be worked out on basis of Notification No. 55/2003-Cus for goods supplied by EOU to EPCG licence holder. Held that - assessee not EOU clarification not applicable. Demand with interest upheld. Clearance made with knowledge and approval of department because of wrong interpretation of law. Imposition of penalty totally unfair and not called for.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on clearance of Textile Machinery Parts to EPCG Licence holders without payment of Central Excise duty.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Textile Machinery Parts, cleared goods to EPCG Licence holders without paying Central Excise duty after the invalidation of EPCG licenses. The department confirmed duty demand of Rs. 66,63,270/- with interest and imposed penalties on the appellants. The advocate for the appellants argued that clearances were made with proper documents and department knowledge. He cited Circulars and Policies supporting duty exemption for EPCG scheme goods. However, the Tribunal held that such exemptions do not apply to Domestic Manufacturers, and duty equivalent to Customs duty is applicable as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized that without specific exemption Notifications, duty payment is mandatory. The Tribunal also noted that penalties were unjust due to misinterpretation of the law by both parties.

2. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and found that the duty demand was correctly made as per the law. The clarifications from the Ministry of Commerce and CBEC were deemed inapplicable to Domestic Manufacturers, and duty payment was mandatory in the absence of exemption Notifications. The Tribunal highlighted that legal fictions, such as deemed exports, do not automatically grant duty exemptions without specific statutory provisions. While acknowledging the benefit of refund of terminal excise duty for deemed exports, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of exemption Notifications for extending duty exemptions. The Tribunal concluded that penalties imposed on the appellants were unfair due to the misinterpretation of the law by both parties, leading to the clearance without duty payment. Consequently, the duty demand with interest was upheld, while the penalties on the appellants were set aside.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the duty demand with interest on the clearance of Textile Machinery Parts to EPCG Licence holders without Central Excise duty payment. The penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside due to the misinterpretation of the law by both parties. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specific exemption Notifications for duty exemptions and clarified that legal fictions like deemed exports do not automatically grant such benefits without statutory provisions.