Tribunal upholds excise duty demand for 2010-2011, denies SSI exemption for aluminium structures. The tribunal upheld the excise duty demand against the appellant for the period 2010-2011, denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003 ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal upholds excise duty demand for 2010-2011, denies SSI exemption for aluminium structures.
The tribunal upheld the excise duty demand against the appellant for the period 2010-2011, denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003 for fabrication of aluminium structures and glass facades. The appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs, with an additional Rs. 50,000 to be paid within six weeks. Compliance within the specified timeframe was emphasized to avoid dismissal of the appeal without further notice.
Issues: Excise duty demand denial under SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003 for fabrication of aluminium structures and glass facades.
Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order confirming an excise duty demand of Rs. 24,31,969 against the appellant for the period 2010-2011, denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003.
2. The appellant, engaged in fabrication of aluminium structures and glass facades, contended that their turnover would be below Rs. 3.00 crore, making them eligible for the exemption. They argued that as the structures are immovable at the customer's site, there should be no excise duty liability on them. The manufacturing activity is limited to aluminium structures, not glass facades.
3. The appellant had paid Rs. 2.5 lakhs against the demands, requesting a stay based on a previous tribunal order for a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs against a demand of Rs. 1.23 crore for the normal period. The tribunal considered a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs appropriate, directing the appellant to pay an additional Rs. 50,000 within six weeks, with the balance dues waived upon compliance.
4. The Ld. Additional Commissioner for Revenue supported the lower appellate authority's findings, leading to a detailed consideration by the tribunal.
5. The tribunal referred to its previous order in the appellant's case, where a pre-deposit of approximately 40% of the duty demanded for the normal period was accepted. Given the potential Cenvat credit eligibility on inputs, a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs was deemed suitable. The appellant was directed to pay an additional Rs. 50,000 within six weeks, with the balance dues waived upon compliance, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.
6. The appellant's counsel acknowledged the tribunal's directions, emphasizing compliance within the specified timeframe to avoid dismissal of the appeal without further notice.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
