2010 (7) TMI 450 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Grants Duty Exemption for Synthetic Fibres Under Notification 30/2004-C.E.

RAYMOND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and disposing of the cross-objections. The judgment favored the appellant, recognizing ... Textile and textile articles - Notification No. 12/2009-C.E - amending Notification added a new entry (serial No. 10A) to the Table to Notification 30/2004-C.E. to exempt synthetic/artificial filament tow procured from outside and subjected to “tow-to-top process” required for spinning, from payment of duty of excise - amendment did not purport to operate retrospectively - Synthetic/artificial filament tow (the assessee’s product) could not claim exemption under the pre-existing entry - submission made by the learned JCDR has a bearing on interpretation of the pre-existing entry - remand the question of law (as framed by the learned JCDR) to the lower authority - Revenue to agitate the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Issues involved:Appeal against demand of duty, challenge against penalties imposed, challenge against seizure and confiscation of goods, interpretation of Notification 30/2004-C.E., applicability of High Court judgment, suggestion for remand based on amending Notification No. 12/2009-C.E.Analysis:1. Demand of Duty and Denial of Exemption:The appeal primarily contested the demand of duty amounting to over Rs. 28 crores imposed on the appellant-company by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The demand was based on the denial of the benefit of Notification 30/2004-C.E. due to the manufacturing and clearance of 'synthetic filament tow' without payment of duty. The lower authority denied the exemption, stating that the filament tow procured and processed by the appellant did not qualify as 'staple fibres' under the notification. The key issue revolved around whether the filament tow could be considered as 'staple fibres' for the exemption. The High Court's judgment in a related Writ Petition favored the appellant, recognizing filament tow as falling within the scope of 'staple fibres' under the notification.2. Seizure and Confiscation of Goods:The High Court directed the Tribunal to assess the validity of the seizure and subsequent confiscation of goods in light of the law. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the High Court's ruling on the applicability of the Exemption Notification to the appellant's goods. Following the High Court's judgment, the Tribunal concluded that no excise duty was recoverable from the appellant for the disputed period, leading to the unwarranted seizure and confiscation of goods. Consequently, penalties imposed on the appellant and other functionaries were deemed unnecessary.3. Remand Suggestion and Interpretation of Amending Notification:The JCDR suggested remanding the substantive issue back to the adjudicating authority due to the department's civil appeal and the introduction of a new entry (serial No. 10A) in Notification 30/2004-C.E. The amending Notification added an exemption for synthetic filament tow subjected to a specific process, which was not retrospective. However, the Tribunal declined to remand the issue, emphasizing that the interpretation of the pre-existing entry was settled at the High Court level for the disputed period. Any further interpretation or challenge should be pursued by the Revenue before the Supreme Court.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and disposing of the cross-objections. The judgment highlighted the significance of the High Court's decision on the exemption issue, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant regarding duty demand, seizure, confiscation, and penalties. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the settled interpretation of the law and the specific provisions of the Exemption Notification, emphasizing the importance of judicial precedents in resolving legal disputes.