2013 (8) TMI 387 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption Notification No. 30/94-C.E. - Commissioner rejected exemption - Held that - there is no requirement that separate account or inventory of the inputs meant for exempted and dutiable finished products must be maintained. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant have taken cenvat credit even in respect of inputs which were used in the manufacture of exempted final products - there is no justification for denying the exemption Notification No. 30/94-C.E. to the appellant during the period of dispute and as such the duty demand against the appellant does not appear to be sustainable - Following decision of CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR 1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Circular No. 845/3/2007-CX regarding availing of exemptions, Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., Duty demand and penalty imposition, Machinery facilities for production, Cenvat credit utilization, Prima facie case evaluation for waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Circular No. 845/3/2007-CX:
The Circular laid down a procedure for manufacturers availing multiple exemptions simultaneously. It required proportionate cenvat credit utilization for final products cleared on duty payment. The appellant followed this procedure from Feb 2007 to August 2008. The department disputed the eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. based on cenvat credit availed and machinery facilities.

2. Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E.:
The appellant was accused of not fulfilling conditions for full duty exemption under this notification. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand and penalty imposition, citing non-compliance with exemption conditions. The appellant argued they met all conditions, including proper cenvat credit utilization and absence of machinery for specific production.

3. Machinery facilities for production:
The department contended that the appellant's machinery, like Rectilinear Worsted Combs and Combing Machines, did not comply with the condition of not having facilities for certain goods' production. The Tribunal analyzed the machinery's purpose and concluded that it was for carding/combing, not for producing specific synthetic or artificial fibers.

4. Cenvat credit utilization:
Regarding the cenvat credit balance on 31-1-2007, the Tribunal noted that subsequent reversal of the credit nullified the initial utilization. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal deemed the credit as not taken, dismissing the department's objection based on this credit utilization.

5. Prima facie case evaluation for waiver of pre-deposit:
After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found no justification to deny the exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. during the disputed period. Consequently, the duty demand, interest, and penalty pre-deposit requirements were waived, and recovery was stayed pending appeal resolution.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of Circular interpretation, compliance with exemption conditions, machinery facilities, cenvat credit utilization, and prima facie case evaluation led to the waiver of pre-deposit requirements for the appellant, indicating a favorable outcome in the appeal.