Tribunal overturns duty recovery order, shifts liability to authorities, not appellants.

M/s Walco Engineering Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV

M/s Walco Engineering Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Whether the appellants are liable to pay duty on goods cleared claiming exemption under Notification No.06/2006 dated 01.03.2006.
2. Whether the goods fall under List 4 of the Notification and thus eligible for exemption.
3. Whether the responsibility of verifying the descriptions of goods for exemption lies with the appellant or the departmental authorities.
4. Whether the duty liability, if any, lies on the appellant or their customer.

Summary:

Issue 1: Liability to Pay Duty on Goods Cleared under Exemption Notification

The appellants cleared goods claiming exemption under Notification No.06/2006 dated 01.03.2006, following the procedure under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The Department contended that the goods did not fall under List 4 of the Notification and hence, the exemption was not available. The appellants argued that they cleared the goods based on a Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, which was not challenged or cancelled by the Department. The Tribunal held that without cancelling the Certificate, the Department cannot recover duty from the appellants.

Issue 2: Classification of Goods under List 4 of the Notification

The appellants contended that their goods, constituting 60-70% of the finished goods, fall under List 4 of the Notification as they give essential properties and characteristics to the finished goods. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including Teknik Plant & Machinery Mfg. Co. P. Ltd., which held that goods with essential character of listed items are eligible for exemption. The Tribunal did not offer an opinion on the eligibility based on classification due to the resolution of the case on other grounds.

Issue 3: Responsibility of Verifying Descriptions of Goods

The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the responsibility of verifying the descriptions of goods for exemption cannot be shifted to the assessee, citing case laws such as Birla VXL Ltd. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing that the responsibility lies with the departmental authorities.

Issue 4: Duty Liability on Appellant or Customer

The appellants argued that the duty liability, if any, should lie on their customer, who furnished a bond undertaking to pay the duty. The Tribunal referred to the case of Ravin Cables Ltd., which held that the liability to discharge duty is on the end-user of goods. The Tribunal concluded that even if the exemption was not available, the duty should be recovered from the customer, not the appellants.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Department had not made a case for recovery of duty from the appellants. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal did not offer an opinion on the eligibility based on the classification of the impugned goods.