2013 (3) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 benefit denied - Cleared EOT cranes without payment of duty - Held that - As the Notification provides at sr. No. 237 nil rate of duty of non-conventional devices specified in list-9 EOT cranes are not specified goods. No infirmity in denying benefit of the Notification No. 6/2002. Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules - Held that - The appellant has given advance intimation to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise before the clearance of the EOT cranes by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 and also produced a certificate issued by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, Faizabad and followed the procedure provided under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules with all these facts mentioned in the monthly ER-1 return of the relevant period. Hence, the appellant is not liable to any penalty.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002 regarding exemption for non-conventional devices.
3. Challenge against imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order confirming a demand of Rs. 4,0,027/- with interest and imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,40,027 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant manufactured and cleared EOT cranes without duty payment by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002. The Revenue contended that EOT cranes were not specified goods under the notification and were not captively used in the factory. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Tribunal analyzed the Notification No. 6/2002, specifically Sr. No. 237 providing nil rate of duty for non-conventional devices specified in list-9. Upon reviewing list-9, it was found that EOT cranes were not included in the specified goods. Therefore, the benefit of the notification was denied to the appellant. However, the appellant argued that they had complied with the necessary procedures and requirements for claiming the exemption.

3. The appellant challenged the imposition of penalty under Rule 25, arguing that they had given advance intimation to the Revenue authorities, produced required certificates, and followed the procedures under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed provided prior intimation, produced necessary certificates, and followed the clearance procedures diligently. As all relevant facts were disclosed to the Revenue, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that there was no basis for imposing a penalty. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, while the rest of the impugned order was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confirmation of the demand of duty but set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on the appellant's compliance with the necessary procedures and requirements for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002.