2015 (12) TMI 8 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - Held that - In the said Notification, exemption is allowed to machinery or equipment to leaf cutting machines used in plantation sector. In the present case, we find that the claim of the applicant is that the machines manufactured by them are used for tea leaf cutting and also used in the plantation sector. In support, they have adduced evidences from the respective users who certified that these machines are used for tea leaf cutting manufactured by appellant i.e. CTC leaf cutting machines. We do not see merit in the observation of the ld. Adjudicating Authority that since the certificate contains similar wordings, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. Also, we do not see any other evidences adduced by the Department, contrary to the said certificates. In these circumstances, at this stage, we are of the view that the said machine used for leaf cutting and being used in the plantation sector, accordingly eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. In the result, pre-deposit of the dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 75.42 lakhs and an equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of CTC Tea Processing Machines, claimed exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006, for machines used in the plantation sector specifically for cutting tea leaves. The appellant submitted certificates from users confirming the machines' usage for tea leaf cutting only. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their claim for exemption.

The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that there was a difference in facts compared to the previous case cited by the appellant. They highlighted the absence of a certificate from a Chartered Engineer in the present case, unlike in the previous case. The Revenue also pointed out that the adjudicating authority did not accept the certificates provided by the appellant's users, as mentioned in para 4.8 of the order.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal considered the issue of eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006, for the machines in question. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim that the machines were used exclusively for tea leaf cutting in the plantation sector, supported by certificates from users. The Tribunal disagreed with the adjudicating authority's observation regarding the certificates' wording and the lack of contrary evidence from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the machines qualified for the benefit of the notification. As a result, the pre-deposit of dues was waived, and the recovery was stayed during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.