2003 (9) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds pre-deposit demand for manufacturing company & Director citing blending process as guar gum manufacture.

KRAPS CHEM PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., SURAT-II

The Tribunal upheld the demand for pre-deposit duty and penalty against a manufacturing company and its Director, citing the blending process as ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Manufacture - Classification Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit duty and penalty.2. Classification of the product under CETA sub-heading 1301.10.3. Invocation of extended period of limitation.4. Prima facie determination of manufacture process and correct classification.5. Limitation period for duty demand.Analysis:1. The case involved applications for waiver of pre-deposit duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 92,53,196/- confirmed against the manufacturing company and its Director. The demand was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, based on the assertion that the process of blending guar dal powder with additives constituted the manufacture of guar gum falling under CETA sub-heading 1301.10. The extended period of limitation was invoked due to alleged suppression.2. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The Commissioner's detailed findings concluded that the process resulted in a new product with altered characteristics suitable for various industries, such as paper and explosives. The product, known commercially as guar gum, was classified under Chapter Heading 13, encompassing gums, resins, and vegetable extracts. The Commissioner relied on the Chemical Examiner's Report, confirming the product as guar gum. The applicants contested the classification, arguing that the product did not qualify as gum and should be classified under a different sub-heading.3. While the Tribunal acknowledged the complexity of determining whether the process constituted manufacture and the correct classification of the product, it found a prima facie case for waiver based on the limitation period. The demand for the period up to December 1999 was considered time-barred as the process details in annual declarations were accurate. The duty demand for specific months was calculated, with a directive for pre-deposit within a specified timeframe to secure waiver of the balance duty and penalties pending appeal.4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with the pre-deposit directive and set a deadline for reporting such compliance. Failure to adhere to the directive would result in the vacation of stay and dismissal of appeals without prior notice, underscoring the significance of meeting the specified obligations to maintain the appeal's validity and progression within the legal framework.This comprehensive analysis encapsulates the key issues addressed in the judgment, highlighting the Tribunal's considerations regarding pre-deposit waiver, classification of the product, limitation period for duty demand, and the necessity of compliance with the directives outlined in the decision.