Concessional excise exemption limited by export ceiling; excess DTA clearances pay full duty, while limitation supported interim stay.

A concessional excise rate under Notification No. 23/2003-CE applied only up to 50% of the FOB value of exports made during the year; clearances into the Domestic Tariff Area beyond that ceiling attracted duty at the full rate, and the Foreign Trade Policy carry-forward facility did not expand the notification's exemption. For interim relief, the tribunal noted that the authorities were already aware of the exports and DTA clearances, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not established at the stay stage. On that basis, unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was granted pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether clearances into the Domestic Tariff Area in excess of 50% of the Free on Board value of exports could continue to avail the concessional rate under Notification No. 23/2003-CE; (ii) whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on the ground of limitation.

Issue (i): whether clearances into the Domestic Tariff Area in excess of 50% of the Free on Board value of exports could continue to avail the concessional rate under Notification No. 23/2003-CE.

Analysis: The notification permitted concessional duty only up to 50% of the Free on Board value of exports made during the year. Once clearances exceeded that ceiling, the goods could still be cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area, but duty was payable at the full rate on the excess clearances. The carry-forward facility under the Foreign Trade Policy did not enlarge the exemption available under the notification.

Conclusion: The concessional rate was not available for clearances beyond the 50% limit, and duty was payable at the full rate on the excess clearances.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The excise authorities were already aware of the exports and the Domestic Tariff Area clearances. In that background, suppression or wilful misstatement was not established at the stage of considering stay. The demand therefore appeared vulnerable on limitation, sufficient to support interim protection.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during pendency of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted to the appellant, while the question of duty liability on merits remained open for final adjudication in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be applied according to its own ceiling conditions, and for interim relief, absence of suppression or wilful misstatement can justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery where limitation is prima facie in issue.

---