2012 (9) TMI 676 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - Specified goods - intermediate products i.e. sugar syrup manufactured by them, whether eligible for SSI exemption - Held that - On perusal to the corrigendum issued by the Central Government to notification it does indicate that the products fall under the chapter 9 to 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are included for the benefit of notification No.8/2006 - matter is remanded back to first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount, interest, and penalty.
2. Eligibility for small scale industry benefit for intermediate products under Chapter 17.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount, interest, and penalty totaling Rs.10,52,955. The first appellate authority confirmed these amounts, citing the appellant's ineligibility to avail the small scale industry benefit for intermediate products falling under Chapter 17.

2. The appellant, engaged in biscuit manufacturing, argued that the sugar syrup produced during biscuit manufacturing, classified under Chapter 17, should be eligible for the benefit of Notification No.8/2006. The appellant contended that a corrigendum issued by the Central Government included products falling under Chapter 17 for the said benefit, which the first appellate authority failed to consider. The appellant requested a remand for a fresh consideration based on this corrigendum.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that the benefit of Notification No.8/2006 must be claimed by the appellant and cannot be automatically granted. However, they acknowledged that the first appellate authority did not consider the corrigendum highlighted by the appellant.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, focused on determining the appellant's eligibility for the small scale industry exemption under Notification No.8/2006 for the intermediate product, sugar syrup (Chapter 17). The corrigendum to budget notifications indicated that products falling under Chapter 9 to 20 were included for the benefit of Notification No.8/2006.

5. The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should reconsider the issue in light of the corrigendum to Notification No.08/2006-CE. Without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority for a fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.