Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 468 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. alleged that appellant had invested substantially and had put up the entire project which would indicate that the unit has been set up only after 31-12-2005, thereby the entitlement of Notification No. 39/2001 is correctly denied Held that - Appellant unit was set up after the publication of notification and had started commercial production prior to 31-12-2005. Prima facie, the subsequent investment made by the appellant in the plant in the form of backward integration cannot be held against them for denying the benefit of said notification - waiver of pre-deposit allowed
Issues:
Stay Petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount, interest, and penalties under Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. Analysis: Issue 1: Compliance with Notification No. 39/2001 The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on alleged compliance with Notification No. 39/2001. The appellant contended that they fulfilled the conditions of the notification by producing a certificate from the designated Committee confirming compliance. The appellant argued that they had commenced commercial production before the specified date and cleared significant quantities of MS Billets. The adjudicating authority, however, denied the benefit of the notification due to subsequent investments made by the appellant. Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification Conditions The key issue revolved around the interpretation of conditions specified in Notification No. 39/2001. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant clauses of the notification, particularly focusing on the requirement of setting up a new industrial unit before a specified date. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's unit was indeed a new industrial unit set up within the prescribed timeline and had obtained the necessary certification from the Committee as mandated by the notification. Issue 3: Prima Facie Case for Waiver Upon reviewing the records and submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit amounts. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had met the conditions of the notification by starting commercial production before the deadline. The subsequent investments made by the appellant were not deemed sufficient grounds to deny the benefit of the notification. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Stay Petitions for the waiver of pre-deposit amounts and stayed the recovery pending the disposal of appeals. Recognizing the significance of the case, the Tribunal scheduled the appeals for disposal alongside related cases. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict adherence to notification conditions and upheld the appellant's claim for waiver based on prima facie compliance with the requirements outlined in Notification No. 39/2001.
|