9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1784 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Eligibility of benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - Captive consumption - Held that - observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in Tata Iron s case 2003 (4) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA was in the context of the issue whether raising of coal would result in production and manufacture under Section 6 of The Coal Mines Act; and secondly the changing Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, provides that excise duty is levied and collected on goods produced or manufactured in the country and consequently duty is levied on coal w.e.f. 01.03.2011; besides in other ancillary Rules like CENVAT Credit Rules etc. the words produced or manufactured has been used in juxtaposition. Therefore, at this stage it is difficult to accept that since coal are produced in mines and are not manufactured, therefore, the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dtd.16.03.1995 is not admissible, when all other conditions laid down under the said Notification, including the final product being dutiable, are satisfied. In these circumstances, we find that the Applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged, accordingly all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the Appeal. - Stay granted.
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 based on Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. Analysis: The Appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 5.01 Crores and penalty of Rs. 1.00 Crore imposed under specific provisions of the Central Excise Rules and Act. The Appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE for using raw coal captively to generate steam for coal production during a certain period. The Appellant argued that duty was levied for the first time on coal production from a particular date and referred to legal precedents to support their position. The department contended that the Notification did not explicitly mention the term "produced" along with "manufactured," thus denying the benefit. However, the department failed to provide a contrary judgment to a relevant case cited by the Appellant. The Tribunal examined the dispute regarding the eligibility of the Notification's benefit for using raw coal captively in coal production. The Revenue argued that since the term "produced" was absent in the Notification, the benefit could not be extended to captive consumption of raw coal. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision to support its stance. The Tribunal noted that the levy of excise duty on coal commenced from a specific date and considered the arguments presented. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's argument lacked substantial merit for two main reasons: the Supreme Court's decision was specific to a different context, and the Central Excise Act specified duty on goods produced or manufactured in the country. The Tribunal highlighted that the wording in related rules supported the Appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of dues adjudged, leading to the waiver of all dues and a stay on recovery during the appeal's pendency. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the Appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on the interpretation of Notification No.67/95-CE and the legal provisions governing excise duty on goods produced or manufactured. The decision emphasized the importance of legal interpretations and the specific wording of relevant statutes in determining the applicability of exemptions and benefits in excise matters.
|
