2012 (9) TMI 743 - AT - Central Excise

Wrong claim of Notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended by notification no. 4/2008 - goods manufactured by the applicant are craft paper board - Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty - Held that - The contention of the applicant that the notification is a conditional notification and it is not absolute exemption, therefore, the demand is not sustainable is acceptable as that there exists conditions attached to the exemption provided at serial no. 90 of the Notification. As the notification is subject to the condition provided at serial 10, therefore, prima facie merit in the contention of the applicant that the notification is not absolute exemption. Hence pre-deposit of the dues and stay recovery is waiwed - stay granted - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification no. 4/2006-CE regarding exemption conditions for craft paper board.
2. Determination of whether the exemption under serial no. 90 is absolute or conditional.
3. Assessment of the applicant's eligibility for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty.

Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Notification no. 4/2006-CE concerning the exemption conditions for craft paper board. The dispute arises from the denial of credit to the applicant amounting to Rs. 86,60,541 on the grounds that the goods manufactured by the applicant, craft paper board, were wrongly claimed as exempted under the notification. The Revenue contended that the exemption was granted under the notification and the applicant incorrectly availed the credit, leading to a demand confirmation under section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the other hand, the applicant argued that the notification was conditional and not an absolute exemption, thereby challenging the sustainability of the demand.

Issue 2: The second issue pertains to determining whether the exemption provided under serial no. 90 of the notification is absolute or conditional. The Revenue asserted that the exemption at serial no. 90 was absolute, while the applicant maintained that it was conditional. The crux of the argument lies in the interpretation of the conditions attached to the exemption, particularly condition 10, which restricts the exemption based on the quantity of goods cleared for home consumption from a factory in a financial year.

Issue 3: Lastly, the assessment of the applicant's eligibility for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty is crucial. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Notification no. 4/2006-CE both before and after 28.02.2007 to determine the nature of the exemption and the applicant's compliance with the conditions. After a thorough examination, the Tribunal found merit in the applicant's contention that the notification was not an absolute exemption, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit of dues and the stay of recovery for the appeal hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai delves into the intricate details of interpreting Notification no. 4/2006-CE, specifically focusing on the exemption conditions for craft paper board. The analysis of whether the exemption under serial no. 90 is absolute or conditional plays a pivotal role in determining the applicant's liability and eligibility for the waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal's decision to grant the stay petition showcases a nuanced understanding of the legal nuances involved in excise duty matters, providing clarity on the interpretation of statutory notifications and their implications on duty liabilities.