CESTAT grants stay on cement export duty, ruling favors appellants

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi granted unconditional stay in a case involving cement exports to Nepal. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing them to continue exporting cement without making additional duty payments under Sl.No.1(C) of Notification No.4/2006-CE. Despite the Revenue's objections, citing potential duty liabilities, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the claim. The pre-deposit condition was waived, enabling both parties to seek early hearings due to significant financial implications. The stay petitions were resolved without mandating pre-deposit, permitting the parties to apply for early hearings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of Notification No.4/2006-CE for cement exports, applicability of duty rates, calculation of duty liability, granting of stay without pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi dealt with two stay petitions concerning the manufacturing and export of cement. The appellants were clearing cement for export to Nepal, paying duty at 12% of the retail sale price as per Sl.No.1(A) of Notification No.4/2006-CE. However, the Revenue contended that this serial number was not applicable to the appellants for export clearances as no retail sale price was mentioned on the cement bags, initiating proceedings proposing duty confirmation at normal tariff rates, resulting in significant duty demands in two cases.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Ultratech Cement Ltd., where it was held that Sl.No.1(C) of the Notification should be used for duty payment on cement cleared for export. The appellants' advocate argued that Sl.No.1(C) mandates duty at Rs. 400 per M.T. or 14% of the transaction value, whichever is higher. As the appellants had already paid duty at 12% of the retail sale price, they had paid more than required under Sl.No.1(C).

Considering the previous stay order and the interpretation of Sl.No.1(C), the Tribunal granted unconditional stay in the present case. The Revenue raised objections, suggesting that some duty liability might still be due from the appellants under Sl.No.1(C), estimating a difference of Rs. 40 lakhs in one case. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of detailed calculations supporting this claim.

At the interim stage, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit condition following the earlier order, allowing both parties to file early hearing applications due to the substantial amounts involved. The stay petitions were disposed of accordingly, maintaining the stay without requiring pre-deposit and granting liberty for early hearing application submission.

---