Tribunal Waives Pre-deposit Requirements for EOU Scheme Operators

The tribunal granted a total waiver of pre-deposit requirements for duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 112(a) for appellants operating under the 100% EOU scheme. Emphasizing a broader interpretation of "manufacture" for export purposes than Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, the tribunal acknowledged the appellants' manufacturing activity and issued a stay order to prevent coercive measures pending appeal disposal. The tribunal's decision, supported by relevant judgments, ensured a comprehensive review of the case, with the final hearing scheduled for 25th May 2009.

---

---

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit requirement for duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 112(a) for appellants under 100% EOU scheme.
2. Interpretation of the term "manufacture" for export purposes.
3. Applicability of Board's Circular dated 6-5-1997 in determining manufacturing activity for export.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, being 100% EOU importing machineries for scrapping and exporting the segregated scrap, were required to pre-deposit duty demand of Rs. 12,29,944/-, redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000/-, and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112(a). The advocate highlighted the appellants' status under the EOU scheme and the revenue's contention that their activity did not amount to manufacture.

2. The advocate referred to the Board's Circular dated 6-5-1997, emphasizing that the term "manufacture" for export has a broader interpretation than Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal acknowledged the advocate's argument, indicating a strong case on merits in favor of the appellants regarding the manufacturing activity undertaken by them. Consequently, the tribunal ordered a total waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned order.

3. In light of the broader interpretation of "manufacture" for export purposes and the clarification provided in the Board's Circular, the tribunal decided to grant a stay order, preventing any coercive measures until the appeal's disposal. The tribunal also noted that the stay order would continue even after the expiry of 180 days, citing several judgments supporting this decision. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing on 25th May 2009, ensuring a comprehensive review of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to pre-deposit requirements, the interpretation of "manufacture" for export, and the impact of the Board's Circular on determining manufacturing activities for export purposes.

---