9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 25 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Concessional rate of excise duty under Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 - department sought to deny the concessional rate on the ground that MS Wire Rods has not been specified as a product in the LOP given by the Development Commissioner and, therefore, the appellant is liable to discharge the excise duty at the full tariff rate and not at the concessional rate - Held that - There is a technical breach of the condition of the LOP by the appellant in this case, which could have been rectified by the appellant by making suitable application before the Development Commissioner which can still be done. We find merit in the appellant s contention that they had not suppressed any information in this regard and, therefore, the extended period of time could not have been invoked in the present case. In this factual scenario, deposit of duty for the normal period of limitation would suffice for hearing of the appeal which the appellant has already done. Accordingly, we grant waiver from pre-deposit of the balance of dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
Issues:
- Duty demand confirmation against the appellant M/s Viraj Profiles Ltd. - Denial of concessional rate on MS Wire Rods by the department. - Invocation of extended period of limitation for demanding duty. - Consideration of deposited duty for the normal period of limitation. - Granting waiver from pre-deposit of the balance of dues adjudged against the appellant. In the case, the appeal and stay application were filed against the Order-in-Original NO. 9/AC/COMMR/TH-II/CX/2013 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 55,80,983/- against the appellant M/s Viraj Profiles Ltd., along with interest and an equivalent penalty. The appellant, a manufacturer and exporter of SS Wire Rods, conducted a trial run with MS Billets before using SS Billets to stabilize the manufacturing process. The MS Wire Rods produced during the trial were cleared to the DTA under concessional excise duty rates. The department contended that as MS Wire Rods were not specified in the LOP, the concessional rate was not applicable. The appellant argued that the department was aware of these clearances and that the extended period of limitation for demanding duty should not apply. They had already paid Rs. 14,56,347/-, exceeding the duty demand for the normal limitation period, which they believed should be sufficient for the appeal. The Revenue, represented by the Addl. Commissioner, maintained that the appellant was not entitled to the concessional rate due to the absence of MS Wire Rods in the LOP. The Tribunal acknowledged a technical breach by the appellant, suggesting it could be rectified by applying to the Development Commissioner. Despite this breach, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that no information was suppressed, and thus, the extended period of limitation should not have been invoked. Considering the appellant's deposit covering the duty for the normal limitation period, the Tribunal granted a waiver from pre-deposit of the remaining dues adjudged, allowing a stay on recovery during the appeal's pendency. The judgment, delivered by the Tribunal, emphasized the importance of compliance with conditions and the possibility of rectification for technical breaches. It highlighted the significance of full disclosure to avoid the invocation of extended periods of limitation for demanding duty. The decision to grant a waiver and stay on recovery was based on the appellant's payment exceeding the duty demand for the normal limitation period, demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling their obligations.
|
