2004 (9) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demands of duty for periods Feb. '01 to Aug. '01 and Sept. '01 to Apr. '02 regarding Liquified Sulphur Di-Oxide.
- Challenge to demands based on Tribunal's decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore.
- Claim for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.
- Consideration of Tribunal's decision in Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.
- Granting of waiver to the extent of 50% of the duty amounts.
- Compliance deadline and waiver of penalty amounts.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved the confirmation of demands of duty against the appellants for specific periods related to Liquified Sulphur Di-Oxide. The appellants challenged these demands citing the Tribunal's decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, where rental charges were held not includible in the assessable value of the product. The Counsel sought a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the duty and penalty amounts. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed this claim referring to the Tribunal's decision in Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, upheld by the Supreme Court, which held rental and maintenance charges on Acetylene Gas Cylinders as includible in the assessable value of Acetylene Gas.

The Tribunal noted that the decision in Kota Oxygen was not considered in the Grasim Industries case, and the Apex Court upheld the former while dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the issue in the present case was deemed to be covered against the appellants by the case law cited by the DR. Despite this, considering the contentious nature of the issue raised by the Counsel based on the Grasim Industries decision, the Tribunal decided to grant waiver to the extent of 50% of the duty amounts. Therefore, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were allowed for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- in one appeal and Rs. 25,000/- in another appeal. The appellants were directed to deposit the balance amounts of duty within 6 weeks and report compliance by a specified date, with waiver and stay also granted in respect of penalty amounts.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the conflicting decisions in different cases, the arguments put forth by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision to grant partial waiver based on the circumstances and legal precedents cited. The detailed analysis provided clarity on the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision and the directives given to the appellants regarding compliance and penalty amounts.