2013 (10) TMI 893 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Activity Manufacture OR Not Revenue was of the view that the activity done by the applicant amounted to manufacture Held Following TI Diamond Chain Ltd. Vs. CCE 2000 (3) TMI 1041 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - the Tribunal has already examined the matter and granted waiver of predeposit in the assessee s own case on an identical matter, waiver of pre-deposit in this case also granted and there shall be stay on collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity undertaken by the applicant amounts to manufacture?
2. Whether the applicant is liable to pay excise duty for the period 2008-09?
3. Whether the penalty imposed on the applicant is justified?
4. Whether the applicant is entitled to waiver of predeposit of dues?

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around determining whether the activity carried out by the applicant constitutes "manufacture" under excise laws. The applicant procures various items of PVC sanitary wares from different job workers, assembles different parts of toilet flushing systems, conducts visual inspection and pressure testing, labeling, and packing before selling the goods. The Revenue contended that these activities amounted to manufacture, leading to a demand for unpaid excise duty. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and granted waiver of predeposit based on similar cases, ultimately ruling in favor of the applicant.

2. The issue of excise duty liability for the period 2008-09 was raised in the appeal. The Revenue demanded payment of Rs.12,90,304/- along with interest, which was confirmed against the applicant after adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals) also imposed a penalty on the applicant. However, the Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides and previous precedents, granted waiver of predeposit and stayed the collection of dues during the appeal process.

3. The imposition of the penalty on the applicant was a subject of contention. The learned consultant for the applicant referred to previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court rulings to support the plea for waiver of predeposit. On the other hand, the learned AR argued that the applicant's activities amounted to manufacture, citing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, granted the waiver and stayed the collection of dues, aligning with the applicant's position.

4. The final issue revolved around whether the applicant was entitled to the waiver of predeposit of dues. The Tribunal, having examined similar matters in the past and considering the arguments presented, granted the waiver and ordered a stay on the collection of dues during the pendency of the appeal. The decision was based on the Tribunal's previous rulings and the principles of equity and fairness in similar cases.