2002 (1) TMI 551 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for two applicants.

Analysis:

1. Applicant No. 1 - M/s. Cristopia Energy Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.:
- The appellant argued that the demand of duty was for the period from January 1997 to June 2000 due to manufacturing goods bearing a foreign brand name, denying them SSI Exemption. They contended that the demand was time-barred based on the collaboration agreement with a French company, which was provided to the Central Excise officers in December 1998. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their case.
- The appellant also claimed eligibility for the SSI Notification benefit post-amendment in February 2000, as they submitted a certificate from the Gram Panchayat confirming manufacturing in a rural area. They sought deduction of excise duty and Modvat credit as per legal decisions.
- The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for non-invokability of the extended period of limitation from December 1998 and eligibility for the notification amendment from February 2000. They directed Applicant No. 1 to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs towards duty within eight weeks, with a waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty during the appeal's pendency.

2. Applicant No. 2 - Shri C.M. Gupta:
- The appellant argued that Shri C.M. Gupta, as an Executive Director, was not involved in activities triggering penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. They claimed Gupta's belief that the brand name belonged to the company, absolving them of duty liability. Gupta's modest income was highlighted as a factor.
- The Revenue contended that using a foreign brand name on goods rendered them ineligible for exemption, and Gupta, as an authorized signatory, was deemed involved with the goods. Legal precedents were cited to support the Revenue's position.
- The Tribunal considered the arguments and found a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for both applicants, with a direction for duty deposit by Applicant No. 1. The recovery of penalty was stayed during the appeal process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted partial relief to the appellants by allowing a waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and directing the deposit of duty by Applicant No. 1. The decision was based on the arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the circumstances surrounding the collaboration agreement and brand name usage. The matters were scheduled for compliance reporting, indicating ongoing monitoring of the case.