2003 (12) TMI 553 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for M/s. Maniar and Company
- Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for Shafi Abdul Rahim Maniar
- Consideration of time limit for duty demand
- Classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff Act
- Rejection of modification of Stay Order by Commissioner (Appeals)

Waiver of Pre-Deposit for M/s. Maniar and Company:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, arguing that the demand of duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued outside the time limit. They also claimed that the Department had prior knowledge of the product classification under Heading 87.05. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their application for modification of the Stay Order without hearing them. The Tribunal stayed the recovery of duty and penalty, setting aside the impugned order, and remanded the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for proper consideration after hearing the application for modification of the Stay Order.

Waiver of Pre-Deposit for Shafi Abdul Rahim Maniar:
In the case of Shafi Abdul Rahim Maniar, the appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The Departmental Representative argued that new facts regarding the product's utilization had come to light, affecting its classification under Heading 84.29. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not heard the appellants before rejecting their application for modification of the Stay Order. Consequently, the recovery of duty and penalty was stayed, and the matter was remanded for a proper hearing and decision by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Consideration of Time Limit for Duty Demand:
The issue of the time limit for duty demand was raised by the appellants, contending that the demand was outside the prescribed period. They highlighted the show cause notice date and the period to which the demand pertained. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and emphasized the need for proper consideration of the time-bar aspect by the Commissioner (Appeals) before making a decision on the appeals.

Classification of the Product under Central Excise Tariff Act:
The classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff Act was disputed, with the Department claiming that the product was a shovel loader classifiable under Heading 84.29. The appellants argued that the product was correctly classified under Heading 87.05. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to address this classification issue along with the time-bar aspect before deciding the appeals.

Rejection of Modification of Stay Order by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the modification of the Stay Order without hearing the appellants. The Tribunal found this procedural lapse and remanded the appeals for proper consideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and a speaking order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in accordance with the law.