2004 (8) TMI 456 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Extension of stay of recovery of penalty amount
- Jurisdiction of Single Member to extend stay order passed by Division Bench
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944

Extension of Stay of Recovery of Penalty Amount:
The case involved a demand notice issued to the appellants by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-V Division. The appellants' Counsel requested an extension of stay of recovery of the penalty amount. The petition for extension, accompanied by an affidavit, highlighted that the period of 180 days from the original stay order had expired, leading to the issuance of the demand notice. The Counsel argued that the Bench had jurisdiction to extend the stay of recovery, citing the IPCL v. CCE case. The Single Member considered the request for extension, noting the amount pre-deposited by the party and the potential undue hardships from further recovery. The Single Member granted a stay of recovery until the Division Bench could review the petition for extension of stay.

Jurisdiction of Single Member to Extend Stay Order Passed by Division Bench:
The Single Member recognized that the issue at hand pertained to the imposition of a penalty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalty amount imposed on the assessee was Rs. 3,59,076. While the issue fell within the jurisdiction of a Single Member, it was deemed inappropriate for the Single Member to modify the stay order passed by the Division Bench. However, under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, the Single Member had the authority to consider the appellants' request and issue appropriate orders for the sake of justice. The Single Member acknowledged the need for interim relief due to the absence of a Division Bench during that week and granted a stay of recovery until the Division Bench could address the petition for extension of stay.

Imposition of Penalty under Rule 96ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The primary issue in the appeal was whether a penalty was rightfully imposed on the appellants under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and if so, to what extent. The penalty amount in question was Rs. 3,59,076. The Single Member noted that while the issue technically fell within the jurisdiction of a Single Member, passing an order of extension of stay would essentially modify the original stay order issued by the Division Bench. Despite this limitation, the Single Member decided to address the appellants' request and provide interim relief by granting a stay of recovery until the Division Bench could review the matter. The decision aimed to prevent undue hardships to the appellants and ensure justice in the proceedings.