2015 (3) TMI 1097 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Grants Stay Petition, Resolves NCCD Exemption Issue

BEML Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Mysore

The Tribunal, led by Judicial Member Smt. Archana Wadhwa and Technical Member Shri B.S.V.Murthy, allowed the stay petition unconditionally based on the ... Exemption from payment of duty vide Notification No.67/95-CE - manufacture of dumpers - captive consumption - exemption from payment of NCCD - Held that:- Manufacturing process remain the same and there is no deviation from the earlier manufacturing process. The goods are identical and as such it was not open to the Commissioner, in the present adjudication, to conclude differently than the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. He also clarifies that the question of law involved in the earlier proceedings was as to whether when the excisable goods which are exempted from excise duty, would attract NCCD or not. It was this question of law which was kept open by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said question of law would get attracted only when the chassis come into existence independently and held to be exempted from excise duty on account of their captive consumption. Inasmuch as they succeeded on the facts itself, the question of law involved in the earlier proceedings is of no relevance. - after having gone through the earlier final order of the Tribunal, we agree with the learned advocate that it stands concluded that dumpers come into existence in one-go itself and there is no separate emergence of chassis in the process. - Stay granted. Issues:1. Exemption from National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) for dumpers manufacturing.2. Dispute regarding the emergence of chassis during the manufacturing process.3. Relevance of previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions on the current case.Analysis:1. The case involves the exemption from NCCD for dumpers manufacturing under Notification No.67/95-CE. The Revenue contends that even if dumpers are exempt from excise duty, it does not automatically exempt them from NCCD. The lower authorities confirmed a demand of around Rs. 32 crores for NCCD against the appellants.2. The appellant argues that chassis do not emerge independently during the manufacturing process but are part of the dumpers that emerge in one-go. Previous proceedings and decisions by the Commissioner, Tribunal, and Supreme Court supported the appellant's stance that chassis do not independently come into existence. The Tribunal's order No.1466/2009 was upheld by the Supreme Court, leaving the question of law open.3. The main contention is whether the issue of NCCD exemption is conclusively settled by previous decisions. The appellant maintains that the manufacturing process and goods remain the same, and the legal question regarding NCCD exemption does not arise if dumpers are considered to emerge in one-go without separate chassis production. The Tribunal, after reviewing the earlier decision, agrees with the appellant that dumpers do not have a separate emergence of chassis, thus rendering the NCCD issue irrelevant.In conclusion, the Tribunal, led by Judicial Member Smt. Archana Wadhwa and Technical Member Shri B.S.V.Murthy, allowed the stay petition unconditionally based on the previous decision that dumpers do not involve a separate emergence of chassis during the manufacturing process, thereby resolving the NCCD exemption issue in favor of the appellants.