1999 (10) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption - Benefit claimable at any stage of the proceedings - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals
2. Waiver of deposit of duty
3. Classification of beverages under Heading 22.09
4. Incorrect calculation of duty rates
5. Exemption of pulp-based drinks from duty
6. Clarification on fruits used in pulp-based drinks
7. Availability of Notification 103/90 and 2/94
8. Deductions on freight and octroi
9. Deduction of duty from the cum duty price
10. Calculation of duty payable
11. Imposition of penalty under rule 173Q read with Section 11AC

Analysis:
1. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned due to numerous show cause notices.

2. Applications were made for the waiver of deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 8.59 crores. The duty was demanded for beverages classified under Heading 22.09 instead of Heading 20.01, disqualifying them from duty-free clearance.

3. The contention regarding the correct classification under Heading 20.01 was rejected, as the goods were considered prima facie classifiable under Heading 22.02 due to the addition of water to fruit juice, making them diluted products.

4. The incorrect application of a 15% duty rate instead of the actual 10% rate under Heading 22.02 was acknowledged, reducing the duty payable amount. The availability of Modvat credit was also discussed.

5. Pulp-based drinks were claimed to be exempt from duty under Notifications 103/90 and 2/94. The Commissioner's failure to address this claim was deemed unacceptable.

6. Clarification was sought on the fruits used in pulp-based drinks, with evidence supporting their classification as pulp-based drinks, making them eligible for the duty exemption.

7. The availability of Notifications 103/90 and 2/94 was confirmed, emphasizing that the benefit of a notification can be claimed at any stage during proceedings.

8. Deductions on account of freight and octroi were claimed but lacked detailed documentation.

9. The deduction of duty from the cum duty price was supported by a Tribunal decision, with a deduction amount stated.

10. After considering all aspects, the duty payable was determined to be Rs. 93.07 lakhs, with a directive to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs.

11. A penalty of Rs. 20 crores was imposed under rule 173Q read with Section 11AC, which was waived due to no suppression of facts justifying the penalty.

12. The payment deadline for the determined amount was set within two months of the order receipt. Compliance was required by 3rd November 1999.