Appellant breached rules by clearing goods without certificates, directed to deposit duty amount to avoid penalties.

The Tribunal found the appellant in violation of substantive rules for clearing goods without proper certificates, contrary to Notfn. No. 1/95-C.E. Despite the appellant's argument of procedural violations, the Tribunal deemed the breach as substantive, following the Ratangiri Textiles Ltd case. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit a duty amount of Rs. 50 lakhs within three months to avoid penalties, with non-compliance leading to appeal dismissal.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of Notfn. No. 1/95-C.E dtd. 4-1-1995 regarding clearance of goods without payment of duty and CT-3 certificate, Procedural vs. Substantive violation, Burden of duty on supplier vs. appellants, Pre-deposit requirement for appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of relays and parts falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA, who cleared goods to an EHTP unit without payment of duty in contravention of Notfn. No. 1/95-C.E. The appellant admitted exceeding the quantity in CT-3 certificates and clearing goods without the required certificates, violating Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the necessity of CT-3 certificates and held the violation as substantive, citing the Ratangiri Textiles Ltd case.

The appellant argued that the violation was procedural, citing judgments like Avery India Ltd and others. However, the SDR contended that the failure to produce CT-3 certificates constituted a substantive violation, as established in the Ratangiri Textiles Ltd case. The debate centered on whether the violation was procedural or substantive, determining the burden of duty between the supplier and the appellants.

Upon thorough consideration, the Tribunal found the appellant had indeed breached substantive rules by clearing excess goods without proper certificates. While the appellant referenced procedural violations in their defense, the Tribunal aligned with the Ratangiri Textiles Ltd case, emphasizing the substantive nature of the violation. As the appellant acknowledged the charges and lacked financial hardship, they were directed to pre-deposit a duty amount of Rs. 50 lakhs within three months to avoid further penalties. Failure to comply by the specified date would lead to dismissal of the appeal.

---