2005 (2) TMI 654 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of company on duty dispute, rejects retroactive duty rate change

The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Peninsula Polymers (now Terumo Penpol) in a case challenging a Show Cause Notice for differential duty on blood bags ... Rate of duty - Demand Issues:- Interpretation of Central Excise duty rate increase post-clearance- Applicability of duty on goods in depot post-rate change- Consideration of depot as a place of removal for excisable goodsInterpretation of Central Excise duty rate increase post-clearance:The case involved M/s. Peninsula Polymers, now Terumo Penpol, challenging a Show Cause Notice demanding differential duty on blood bags cleared prior to a Central Excise duty rate increase. The dispute centered on whether duty could be demanded on goods in a depot that were identified as duty paid but not yet sold when the duty rate changed. The authorities argued that duty could be demanded based on the new rates even if goods were already duty paid. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that goods had already suffered duty and imposing new duty rates on them post-clearance was unjustified. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between valuation under Section 4 and duty determination, cautioning against applying new rates retroactively to goods already taxed.Applicability of duty on goods in depot post-rate change:The primary issue was whether duty could be levied on blood bags in the appellants' depot after a duty rate increase post-clearance. The authorities contended that since the goods had not entered the market before the rate change, the new duty rate could be applied. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that goods that had already undergone duty payment should not be subjected to increased rates after clearance. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty paid goods should not be taxed again at new rates simply because they were removed from the depot after the rate change, ultimately allowing the appeal against the duty demand.Consideration of depot as a place of removal for excisable goods:Another crucial aspect was whether the depot should be considered a place of removal for excisable goods, impacting the determination of duty rates post-clearance. The authorities relied on Section 4(4)(b)(iii) to argue that depots should be treated as places of removal, justifying the application of new duty rates. However, the Tribunal disagreed, highlighting that goods in the present case had already been taxed, and imposing new rates on goods in depots post-clearance was unwarranted. The Tribunal cautioned against extending the logic too far, as it could lead to refund claims based on subsequent rate changes, underscoring the distinction between valuation for Section 4 purposes and duty rate determination. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that duty should not be imposed at new rates on goods already subjected to duty payment.