Tribunal rules in favor of applicant, distinguishing notification wording, waives pre-deposit.S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, D.N. Panda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.K. Philips, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri C.S. Rajput, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides on the stay petition. 2. The applicant is manufacturing and clearing unbranded goods availing exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, dated 1-3-2003; they also manufacture the same specified goods with the brand name of others and cleared them on payment of duty. In as much as t... ... ... Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 8/2003 for exemption on unbranded goods, applicability of previous judgments on similar notifications, eligibility for Cenvat credit, waiver of pre-deposit pending appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of an applicant for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 for clearing unbranded goods while also manufacturing and clearing specified goods with a brand name, for which they paid duty and availed Cenvat credit. The Department contended that since the applicant availed Cenvat credit for branded goods, the exemption for unbranded goods was not applicable, leading to a demand of Rs. 5,54,051/- and imposition of penalty.

The learned Advocate argued that a previous decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Ramesh Food Products was not directly applicable as it related to a different notification (175/86-C.E.) with different wording compared to Notification No. 8/2003. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on another decision in the case of Saurashtra Exports v. CCE, Rajkot, suggesting that the notifications in question were substantially similar.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal opined that the change in wording in Notification No. 8/2003 distinguished it from the previous cases cited. The Tribunal noted that the decision in Ramesh Foods Products was rendered in a different context and that the case of Saurashtra Exports pertained to the denial of Cenvat credit, not the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stayed the recovery pending the disposal of the appeal. Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit TALSON PHARMACEUTICALS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PANCHKULA
Central Excise
2008 (7) TMI 783 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 345 (Tri. - Del.)
CESTAT, NEW DELHI - AT
Dated:- 21-7-2008
E/1293/2008 - 753/2008-EX/(PB)
Central Excise
S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, D.N. Panda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.K. Philips, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri C.S. Rajput, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides on the stay petition. 2. The applicant is manufacturing and clearing unbranded goods availing exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, dated 1-3-2003; they also manufacture the same specified goods with the brand name of others and cleared them on payment of duty. In as much as they were clearing the branded goods on payment of duty they have taken Cenvat credit in respect of inputs gone into the manufacture of such branded goods. The Department has taken a view that inasmuch as they are clearing branded goods on payment of duty and availing Cenvat credit, the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 for the clearance of unbranded goods was not available and accordingly demand of Rs. 5,54,051/- and imposed penalty. 3. Learned Advocate submits that the decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Ramesh Food Products reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 310 (S.C.) relates to Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and the present Notification No. 8/2003 is worded differently. 4. Learned DR submits that these two notifications are substantially the same and he relies on the decision of Ramesh Foods Products and Saurashtra Exports v. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 448 (Tri. - Ahmd.). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. We are of the prima facie view that in view of the change in the wordings of the notification No. 8/2003, the decision in the case of Ramesh Foods Products (supra) rendered in the context of 175/86 may not be applicable to the present facts of the case. The case of Saurashtra Exports (supra) relates to denial of Cenvat credit and not denial of the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. 6. In the light of the above, we waive the pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stay recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders