2007 (6) TMI 320 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Separate central excise registration for the texturised yarn unit and revocation of the same.
2. Denial of concessional rate of duty for draw texturised yarn (DTY) and recovery of differential duty.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Appeal against the order revoking central excise registration and imposition of penalty.
5. Appeal against the duty confirmation and penalty imposition by the Commissioner's order.
6. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties in stay applications.
7. Stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order in the appeal.

Analysis:

The case involves interconnected issues concerning separate central excise registration for the texturised yarn unit and the revocation of the same. The assessees, engaged in manufacturing various yarns, applied for separate registration for the texturised yarn unit, which was granted, making it a distinct factory. A show cause notice was issued proposing the revocation of this registration and denial of the concessional rate of duty for draw texturised yarn (DTY). The differential duty was calculated based on the full duty rate instead of the rate at which the assessees paid duty.

The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise revoked the central excise registration for the DTY division and imposed a penalty. The assessees appealed this decision before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Meanwhile, another show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, upholding the duty demand, interest, and penalties. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal against the revocation of central excise registration for the DTY division.

Regarding the duty confirmation and penalty imposition, the assessees filed appeals seeking waiver of pre-deposit in stay applications. The Revenue also appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and sought a stay of its operation. The Tribunal considered the issue of duty payable under Notification 29/2004, emphasizing the link between separate registration for the DTY unit and duty liability. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessees' claim for separate registration, the Tribunal waived pre-deposit of duty and penalties pending the appeal.

In contrast, granting stay for the Revenue would effectively reinstate the order revoking the separate registration, which was overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found no grounds to exercise inherent powers in favor of the Revenue and rejected their stay applications. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the waiver of pre-deposit for the assessees but declined to grant stay for the Revenue.