Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Tribunal's Predeposit Order in Central Excise Case — Prima Facie Case for Total Waiver Established. Structural glazing, once erected, becomes immovable property and is not excisable under Heading 76.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 64
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, MS Alumayer India Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in fabrication and erection of structural glazing. They purchase aluminum angles/profiles, glass, and other items on payment of excise duty. The aluminum sections are given on job work for cutting and/or anodizing, then cut into sizes and removed to sites for installation. A show cause notice was issued on 23 March 2009 by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise alleging that the appellant manufactured curtain wall/structural glazing without payment of duty, classifying it under Heading 76.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, and invoking extended period of limitation for suppression. The appellant contended that structural glazing, once erected, becomes immovable property and is not excisable. The Tribunal, while disposing of the waiver application, directed deposit of the entire duty amount of Rs.28,12,634/- as a condition for waiver of interest and penalty. The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant did not make out a prima facie case for total waiver. By consent, the appeal was taken up for final hearing. The Court noted that the appellant had a strong prima facie case because structural glazing, once erected, becomes embedded in the earth and is immovable property, not goods liable to excise duty. The Court also noted that the demand was time-barred as there was no suppression. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed that the requirement of predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty be waived entirely, and the appeal before the Tribunal be heard on merits without any predeposit.

Headnote

A) Central Excise - Predeposit Waiver - Prima Facie Case - Section 35F Central Excise Act, 1944 - The issue was whether the Tribunal erred in directing deposit of entire duty amount of Rs.28,12,634/- as condition for waiver of interest and penalty, without considering that the appellant had a strong prima facie case on merits regarding classification of structural glazing as immovable property not liable to excise duty. Held that the appellant made out a prima facie case for total waiver of predeposit (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellants did not make out a prima facie case for total waiver of predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 15 September 2011 is set aside. The requirement of predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty is waived entirely. The Tribunal shall hear the appeal on merits without insisting on any predeposit.

Law Points

  • Prima facie case for waiver of predeposit
  • Section 35F Central Excise Act
  • 1944
  • structural glazing as immovable property
  • classification under Central Excise Tariff Act 1985
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (12) 52

Central Excise Appeal (Lodg.) No.102 of 2011

2011-12-21

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, A. A. Sayed

Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Shah and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b PDS Legal for the Appellant; Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the Respondent

MS Alumayer India Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Central Excise Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding waiver of predeposit of duty.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought waiver of predeposit of duty, interest, and penalty under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged Tribunal's order directing deposit of entire duty amount as condition for waiver of interest and penalty.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal directed deposit of entire duty of Rs.28,12,634/- and waived interest and penalty upon such deposit.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellants did not make out a prima facie case for total waiver of predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that structural glazing, once erected, becomes immovable property and is not excisable; demand is time-barred as there was no suppression. Respondent argued that the appellant manufactured curtain wall/structural glazing which is movable and classifiable under Heading 76.10, and extended period was rightly invoked.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant made out a strong prima facie case for total waiver of predeposit because structural glazing, once erected, becomes embedded in the earth and is immovable property, not goods liable to excise duty. Additionally, the demand appears to be time-barred as there was no suppression of facts.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellants are engaged in the work of fabrication and erection of structural glazing. The show cause notice stated that the Appellants had manufactured curtain wall / structural glazing without the payment of duty. The Appellants have made out a strong prima facie case for total waiver of predeposit.

Procedural History

Show cause notice issued on 23 March 2009 by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. Appellant filed application for waiver of predeposit before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal passed order on 15 September 2011 directing deposit of entire duty. Appellant filed appeal before High Court on 21 December 2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 35F
  • Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Heading 76.10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Compassionate Appointment; Dismisses Bank's Appeal. No pending disciplinary proceedings can bar compassionate appointment for the dependent of a deceased employee unless prima facie evidence of a major penalty exists.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Tribunal's Predeposit Order in Central Excise Case — Prima Facie Case for Total Waiver Established. Structural glazing, once erected, becomes immovable property and is not excisable under Heading 76.10 of Cen...