1993 (10) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of exemption Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 for the Petitioners, interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, applicability of Supreme Court judgment in Samrat International (P) Ltd. - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561, applicability of Tribunal decision in Rasoi Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1993 (63) E.L.T. 512, necessity of notice under Section 11A, financial hardship of the petitioners.

Analysis:

The primary issue in this case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA was the admissibility of exemption Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 for the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that no notice was issued as required under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They contended that the demand is time-barred due to the absence of a proper notice. Additionally, the petitioners, a welfare organization, highlighted their financial difficulties and requested the appeal to be disposed of without insisting on the deposit of the disputed amounts.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative opposed the request for a stay and supported the order appealed against. They argued that the small scale exemption was rightly denied to the petitioners as they did not fulfill the conditions in the relevant Notification regarding registration as a small scale unit with the Director of Industries of the State Government. The Departmental Representative asserted that the notice under Section 11A was not necessary in this case as the duty payment requirement was endorsed in the RT-12 returns.

The Tribunal analyzed the contentions raised by both parties. It was noted that the facts in the case of Rasoi Ltd. were different from the present case. The Tribunal found that the completion of RT12 returns long after the clearance of goods did not justify denying the petitioners the benefit of the small scale unit exemption. The Tribunal also disagreed with the Collector's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Samrat International case, emphasizing that the criteria for provisional assessment cannot solely be based on the maintenance of personal ledger accounts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the plea of limitations and extreme financial hardship raised by the petitioners. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amount, subject to the petitioners submitting a personal bond for the payment of the amount deemed due when the appeal is decided.

Finally, the appeal related to exemption Notification 175/86 and was for the Special Bench. The Registry was instructed to transfer the files to CEGAT, NEW DELHI for further action.