2003 (9) TMI 677 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty.

Waiver of Pre-deposit of Central Excise Duty:
The case involved an application by M/s. Punj Steel Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. for the waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 20,15,000/- and an equal amount of penalty. The appellant, represented by Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, argued that they manufactured non-alloy M.S. ingots liable to duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act during the relevant period. They contended that the Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty for a specific period, during which the factory operated only for the first fortnight of September 1997. The Dy. Commissioner had allowed abatement of duty, except for the mentioned fortnight, and the appellant had paid Rs. 2,50,000/- towards duty for that period. The Commissioner also ordered the adjustment of abatement of duty against the confirmed demand. On the other hand, Shri P.M. Rao, JDR for the Respondent, argued that the abatement claim allowed to the assessee had not been fully adjusted against the demand confirmed in the impugned Order. However, part of the claim was adjusted against another demand confirmed earlier. The Tribunal considered both submissions and noted that the Dy. Commissioner had allowed the abatement of duty, indicating a strong prima facie case in favor of the applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal stayed the recovery of the entire duty amount and penalty during the appeal's pendency, scheduled for a regular hearing on 14-11-2003.

Conclusion:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case of M/s. Punj Steel Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. involved a crucial decision regarding the waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, found merit in the appellant's case due to the abatement of duty allowed by the Dy. Commissioner. As a result, the recovery of the duty amount and penalty was stayed during the appeal process, emphasizing the importance of a strong prima facie case in determining the need for pre-deposit waiver.