1993 (6) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Duty and penalty deposit requirement for hearing the appeal.
2. Contention regarding excisability of intermediate products DECA and CMBE.
3. Compliance with excise formalities and show cause notice issuance.
4. Allegations of deliberate violation to evade duty.
5. Availability of details in the L-4 application.
6. Prima facie view on the excisability of goods.
7. Stay and waiver of recovery of duty and penalty amounts.
8. Direction regarding plant and machinery confiscation.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the requirement for the applicants to deposit a specific sum towards duty, penalty, and fine for hearing their appeal on merits. The plant and machinery were ordered confiscation but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine. The Order-in-Original specified the amounts to be deposited, and the judgment emphasized the necessity of compliance for the appeal to proceed.

2. The contention revolved around the excisability of intermediate products DECA and CMBE. The applicants argued that these products were not in marketable form and were part of the manufacturing process for the final product, Butachlor. They highlighted the lack of evidence on marketability and the department's delayed issuance of a show cause notice, presenting their case on both merit and time bar grounds.

3. The judgment discussed the compliance aspect, indicating that the applicants had not complied with the Superintendent's instructions for clearance of goods at the intermediate stage. The department alleged deliberate violation of rules to evade duty, citing a lack of quantity and value details provided by the applicants.

4. Both parties presented their arguments regarding the alleged violation and intention to evade duty. The department contended that the extended period for duty assessment applied due to the applicants' actions. The delay in providing detailed manufacturing processes was highlighted as a point of contention.

5. The judgment noted the details available in the L-4 application regarding the manufacturing process and the occurrence of intermediate products. It acknowledged the ongoing dispute on the excisability of goods and suggested that the department could have taken provisional clearances or raised demands periodically.

6. Based on the arguments presented, the judgment expressed a prima facie view on the excisability issue, recognizing the potential for an arguable case on the merit. Considering the nature of the applicants as a public limited company controlled by the Government of Gujarat, the judgment directed them to furnish a personal bond covering the duty amount for a stay and waiver of recovery of duty and penalty.

7. The judgment provided specific directions regarding the confiscation of plant and machinery, ensuring that the normal manufacturing process was not disrupted during the appeal process. The timeline for compliance with the order was outlined, emphasizing the consequences of non-compliance.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues and the comprehensive discussion presented in the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay.

← Previous Next →