Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (12) TMI 1452 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
Demand of excise duty on intermediate product - Phosphoric Acid used in the manufacture of Sodium Tripoly Phosphate (STPP) under Notification No. 49/94-CE(NT) - Applicability of Notification No. 67/95-CE on intermediate goods - Invocation of extended period for demand - Quantification of duty based on assumption - Interpretation of conditions under Notification No. 49/94-CE(NT) for export goods.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant manufacturing STPP and clearing it under Chapter X Procedure without duty payment. A show cause notice was issued for demanding excise duty on the intermediate product, Phosphoric Acid, used in manufacturing STPP, citing that Notification No. 67/95-CE did not apply due to the final product's duty exemption. The demand was upheld by the Commissioner, leading to the appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the case aligns with a previous Tribunal judgment where goods were cleared under an Exemption Notification for export use. They contended that as the goods were cleared against a CT-2 certificate for export use, the intermediate goods should remain exempt under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The counsel also challenged the invocation of the extended period for demand and the arbitrary quantification of duty based on assumptions.

On the contrary, the Revenue's Assistant Commissioner argued that since the final product was cleared without duty payment, the exemption for intermediate goods did not apply. They relied on previous judgments to support their stance.

The Tribunal analyzed the conditions of Notification No. 49/94-CE(NT) and concluded that the goods supplied by the appellant were meant for use in export goods. They referenced a previous case to support their decision, stating that goods supplied under bond for export use cannot be treated as duty-exempt goods. Therefore, the final product supplied against a CT-2 certificate should not be considered exempt, making the demand on the intermediate product unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Notification conditions and the alignment of the case with previous judgments, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and rejecting the demand for excise duty on the intermediate product.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates