2013 (10) TMI 1093 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Grants Waiver of Predeposit for Duty & Penalty under Central Excise Rules

M/s. CALCUTTA SPUN PIPES & INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-III

The Tribunal granted the Applicant's request for a waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Despite the ... Waiver of Pre-deposit - Exemption under Notification No.108/95 - Penalty under Rule 25 the Central Excise Rules – Held that:- It is the case of the Department that the Applicant’s name did not figure in the Project Authority’s Certificate issued by Kolkata Environmental Improvement Project (KEIP), but it is also not in dispute that the pipes meant for the said project against the contract had been supplied by the Applicant for construction of sewerage and drainage for Borough-XIV Lot-3, as is evident from a certificate issued by the main contractor in favour of the Applicant - after going through the relevant invoice, prima facie, the project reference had been mentioned while clearing the goods to the project as supplied to the main contractor - the Applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues during pendency of the Appeal – Pre-deposit of all dues waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Stay granted. Issues: Application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Analysis:1. The Applicant sought waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Applicant had cleared RCC spun pipes for a project financed by the Asian Development Bank, where a part of the project was allocated to the Applicant by the main contractor. The Department denied exemption claiming the Project Authority's Certificate was not in the Applicant's name. However, it was acknowledged that the pipes were supplied for the designated project, as confirmed by a certificate from the main contractor. The Applicant argued that the project reference was mentioned in clearance documents and correspondence with the main contractor.2. The Revenue, represented by the ld. AR, supported the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the denial of exemption. The issue revolved around the absence of the Applicant's name in the Project Authority's Certificate, despite the actual supply of pipes for the designated project as evidenced by documentation and certificates from the main contractor. The Tribunal noted that the dispute was centered on this narrow point.3. Upon considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal observed that the crux of the matter was whether the Applicant's name appeared in the Project Authority's Certificate. Despite this discrepancy, it was evident that the pipes were indeed supplied for the specified project based on the contract and certificates from the main contractor. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had established a prima facie case for the total waiver of the predeposit of dues during the appeal's pendency. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of predeposit of all dues adjudged and stayed the recovery during the appeal process. The Stay Petition was allowed, and the decision was pronounced in open court.