EOUs Exempt from Additional Excise Duty under Notification 55/91-C.E.

The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, ruling that amendments to the notifications did not impose a liability on 100% EOUs to pay additional excise duty. The Tribunal upheld the exemption under Notification No. 55/91-C.E. for manufacturers like the appellants, quashing the Department's interpretation and the High Court's view.

---

---

Issues:
Application for rectification of impugned order regarding additional excise duty on clearances made in Domestic Tariff Area without payment.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for rectification of an order passed by the Tribunal regarding the payment of additional excise duty on clearances made by a 100% EOU in the Domestic Tariff Area without payment. The Department contended that Notification No. 8/97-C.E. as amended was applicable, requiring the assessee to pay the additional duty of excise. However, the assessee argued that they were exempt under Notification No. 55/91-C.E. The Tribunal initially confirmed the demand, but on appeal, the Order of the Commissioner was set aside. The respondent relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their case, which set aside previous judgments. The Tribunal analyzed the amendments made to the notifications and concluded that the amendments did not create a liability for 100% EOUs to pay additional excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption under Notification No. 55/91-C.E. remained intact for manufacturers like the appellants, despite the amendments in Notification No. 8/97-C.E. and Notification No. 11/2000-C.E. The Tribunal found the Department's interpretation and the High Court's view indefensible, leading to the rejection of the application for rectification.

In summary, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, ruling that the amendments to the notifications did not impose a liability on 100% EOUs to pay additional excise duty. The Tribunal upheld the exemption under Notification No. 55/91-C.E. for manufacturers like the appellants, quashing the Department's interpretation and the High Court's view.

---