2015 (10) TMI 2352 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of concessional rate of duty under notification 8/99 dated to 8.2.99 - Non production of clarification on whose basis exemption claimed - Held that - so far as availability of exemption is concerned the matter is settled by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Modi rubber Limited (1986 (8) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) in favour of the revenue. We also find that so far as invocation of provisions relating to penalty are concerned the law has been laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Orient fabrics (2003 (11) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) against the revenue. In view above we uphold the demand of duty and set aside the imposition of penalty. - The 2nd appeal deals with adjustment of the above demand and penalty against a sanctioned refund. In view of the vacation of penalty the appellant s succeed in their appeal insofar as adjustment of penalty against the sanction of refund is concerned. They ve become entitled to refund of the penalty amount adjusted earlier. - Appeal disposed of.

Issues:
Claim of exemption under notification 8/99 for additional duty of Excise (goods of special importance) act 1957, interpretation of the expression 'duty of excise' in notifications, imposition of interest and penalty, availability of exemption, invocation of penalty provisions, adjustment of demand and penalty against sanctioned refund.

Exemption Claim under Notification 8/99:
The appellants, manufacturers of impregnated quoted fabrics, claimed the benefit of concessional duty rate under notification 8/99 dated 8.2.99. They contended that the exemption granted under this notification covered the additional duty leviable under the additional duty of Excise (goods of special importance) act 1957. However, the tribunal noted the absence of a specific clarification supporting this claim and highlighted that the exemption did not explicitly cover the additional duty in question. The appellants relied on past decisions and interpretations but failed to produce the necessary evidence to support their argument. The tribunal analyzed relevant legal provisions and upheld the demand of duty while setting aside the imposition of penalty.

Interpretation of 'Duty of Excise' in Notifications:
The tribunal examined the interpretation of the expression 'duty of excise' in notifications, emphasizing the need for a strict reading of such provisions. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Modi Rubber Limited, where the Supreme Court clarified the scope of 'duty of excise' under specific notifications. The tribunal highlighted the importance of clear language in notifications to restrict the exemption to duties leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The absence of limiting words in the notifications in question led to a detailed analysis of the intended scope of the term 'duty of excise,' ultimately supporting the revenue's position.

Imposition of Interest and Penalty:
The argument was raised regarding the imposition of interest and penalty in the case, contending that the provisions relating to interest and penalty were not explicitly incorporated under the relevant act. The tribunal considered this argument but focused on the specific issue of duty exemption and penalty invocation, relying on past judicial decisions to reach a conclusion favorable to the revenue.

Adjustment of Demand and Penalty Against Sanctioned Refund:
The second appeal addressed the adjustment of the demand and penalty against a sanctioned refund. With the penalty imposition set aside, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the adjustment of penalty against the sanctioned refund, entitling them to a refund of the penalty amount previously adjusted. Both appeals were disposed of based on the above considerations, with the tribunal providing a detailed analysis and legal reasoning for its decision.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, interpretations of relevant provisions, and the tribunal's decision-making process in addressing the complex legal arguments presented before it.

← Previous Next →