2002 (1) TMI 1246 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Benefit Claim Under Excise Duty Notification

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay application on the Order-in-Appeal rejecting Excise duty appeals, confirming the benefit claim under Notification ... Stay application - Application for stay of impugned order Issues:1. Stay application by Revenue for Order-in-Appeal rejection.2. Benefit claim under Notification No. 85/95-C.E.3. Tribunal's decision on polymerisation of organic polymers.4. Misdeclaration allegation and Commissioner's decision.5. Stay of Tribunal's decision by Supreme Court.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to three applications filed by the Revenue seeking a stay on the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 288-290/2001, which rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue and confirmed the original orders dropping the demand of Excise duty. The Revenue contended that M/s. Indian Acrylics Ltd. had claimed benefit under Notification No. 85/95-C.E., and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeals based on a Tribunal decision. The Department did not accept the Tribunal's decision, and the appeal was admitted by the Supreme Court. The Respondent argued that the Supreme Court had admitted the appeal but not stayed the operation of the order, urging for disposal of the appeal.2. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 85/95-C.E. concerning the benefit of partial exemption for goods falling under specific categories of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal, in a previous case involving the same respondents, held that the respondents were eligible for the concessional rate of duty under the notification as they did not carry out the process of polymerisation of organic polymers, as required by the notification. The misdeclaration allegation against the respondents was also dismissed by the Commissioner, and the Revenue did not contest this finding. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision.3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that taxing statutes must be interpreted based on the clear language used, without any intendment. The Tribunal refused to substitute terms in the notification and emphasized adherence to the language employed. Since the respondents did not engage in polymerisation of organic polymers, they were deemed eligible for the benefit under Notification 85/95-CE. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal by following the precedent set in the earlier decision concerning the same assessee and product.4. Notably, the Supreme Court had admitted the Revenue's appeal but had not stayed the operation of the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification to grant a stay on the present impugned Order or keep the appeals pending. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of all three appeals by rejecting them, aligning with the precedent established in its earlier decision regarding the eligibility of the respondents for the concessional rate of duty under the notification.This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues and the Tribunal's rationale in the legal judgment, emphasizing the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the application of precedents to resolve the disputes presented before the Tribunal.