Pre-deposit and extended limitation issues in excise classification dispute over aluminium doors, windows and glazing systems

CESTAT Mumbai considered whether complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be granted in a dispute over excisability and classification of aluminium sliding windows, aluminium doors and glazing systems under Chapter 76. It found a prima facie case against invocation of the extended period of limitation because the excisability issue had been subject to conflicting views, but declined total waiver since the normal-period demand remained payable. The Tribunal also took account of possible input credit while determining the deposit requirement. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,00,000 within eight weeks, and recovery of the balance duty, interest and penalty was stayed during the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty, interest and penalties demanded on Aluminum Sliding Windows, Aluminum Doors and Glazing Systems classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and whether the Revenue could invoke the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The demand related to excisability and classification of the impugned structures. The Tribunal noted that the issue of excisability had earlier been the subject of conflicting views, and therefore the applicant had made out a prima facie case that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. At the same time, in view of the earlier Tribunal decision relied upon by the Revenue and the normal-period demand remaining payable, the applicant was not found entitled to total waiver of pre-deposit. The availability of credit on inputs was also taken into account while assessing the extent of deposit to be directed.

Conclusion: Complete waiver was declined. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,00,000 within eight weeks, and on such deposit, recovery of the balance duty, interest and penalty was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

---