2014 (11) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003 dated 01/03/2003 - fabrication of structures - appellant is undertaking both the supply of goods as well as supply of service and on the service portion, they have discharged service tax liability. - Held that - Duty demand for the normal period works out to ₹ 7.00 lakhs. Considering that the appellant might be eligible for the Cenvat credit on the inputs, pre-deposit of ₹ 3.00 lakhs would be appropriate. The appellant has already paid a sum of ₹ 2.5 lakhs. Considering the payment made, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of another ₹ 50,000/- within a period of six weeks and report compliance by 18/03/2014. On such compliance, pre-deposit of balance of dues adjudged against the appellant shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Excise duty demand denial under SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003 for fabrication of aluminium structures and glass facades.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order confirming an excise duty demand of Rs. 24,31,969 against the appellant for the period 2010-2011, denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003.

2. The appellant, engaged in fabrication of aluminium structures and glass facades, contended that their turnover would be below Rs. 3.00 crore, making them eligible for the exemption. They argued that as the structures are immovable at the customer's site, there should be no excise duty liability on them. The manufacturing activity is limited to aluminium structures, not glass facades.

3. The appellant had paid Rs. 2.5 lakhs against the demands, requesting a stay based on a previous tribunal order for a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs against a demand of Rs. 1.23 crore for the normal period. The tribunal considered a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs appropriate, directing the appellant to pay an additional Rs. 50,000 within six weeks, with the balance dues waived upon compliance.

4. The Ld. Additional Commissioner for Revenue supported the lower appellate authority's findings, leading to a detailed consideration by the tribunal.

5. The tribunal referred to its previous order in the appellant's case, where a pre-deposit of approximately 40% of the duty demanded for the normal period was accepted. Given the potential Cenvat credit eligibility on inputs, a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs was deemed suitable. The appellant was directed to pay an additional Rs. 50,000 within six weeks, with the balance dues waived upon compliance, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.

6. The appellant's counsel acknowledged the tribunal's directions, emphasizing compliance within the specified timeframe to avoid dismissal of the appeal without further notice.