2003 (10) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arising from default in payment of excise duty under the fortnightly scheme provided under the Rules, objection to payment by utilization of Cenvat credit, financial inability due to being declared a sick industrial unit, and the directive for pre-deposit of a specific amount within a stipulated time frame.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 17,83,382/- and Rs. 5,50,000/- respectively, following a demand resulting from the alleged default in payment of excise duty under the fortnightly scheme specified in the Rules. The Commissioner objected to the applicant's payment method involving the utilization of Cenvat credit. The Tribunal analyzed Clauses (e) and (b) of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules to determine the validity of the applicant's claim for waiver. It was observed that Clause (e) clearly mandates payment of excise duty for each consignment by debiting the account current when the manufacturer forfeits the facility to pay dues in instalments, thereby disallowing the use of Cenvat credit as argued by the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal found no prima facie case for waiver on merits based on the interpretation of the relevant rules.

Moving on to the financial aspect, the applicant, a company declared as a sick industrial unit by the BIFR, presented its balance sheet for the year ending 31-3-2002 to demonstrate financial incapacity to make the pre-deposit. Despite incurring losses, the company showcased a substantial sales income on the balance sheet. Considering this financial position, the Tribunal concluded that directing the applicant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement would not impose undue hardship. Consequently, a total waiver of pre-deposit was not granted. Instead, the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs towards duty within eight weeks. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty would be waived, and the recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to adhere to this directive would result in the vacation of the stay and dismissal of the appeal without further notice.

The judgment concluded by setting a compliance reporting date of 15-1-2004, emphasizing the importance of timely adherence to the directed pre-deposit requirement.