2004 (12) TMI 572 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for grant of stay from implementing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and to dispense with the pre-deposit order and its recovery.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's unit is engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, specifically non-alloy steel hot re-rolled products under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, governed by Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including the financial year 1999-2000.

2. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur, had previously fixed the annual production capacity of the appellant's unit and determined the duty liability. However, the appellant failed to pay the determined duty for several months, leading to contravention of various Central Excise Rules.

3. Subsequently, Show Cause Notices were issued proposing duty amounts along with interest and penalties. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the original order, resulting in the current appeal.

4. The appellant's advocate argued that the factory had ceased production due to electricity disconnection, citing a similar case where duty liability was considered extinguished upon closure and surrender of registration certificate. However, the respondent contended that in this case, there was no surrender of the registration certificate, and duty liability existed prior to the power disconnection.

5. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the admitted duty amount for two months and a pre-deposit out of the confirmed duty demand. The remaining balance was waived from pre-deposit, and its recovery was stayed subject to the payment within a specified period. The stay application was disposed of with a compliance deadline set.

This judgment primarily revolved around the application for a stay from implementing an order related to duty liability in the manufacturing of iron and steel products. The decision considered the appellant's failure to pay the determined duty, the arguments regarding factory closure due to power disconnection, and the Tribunal's directive for depositing a specific duty amount to proceed with the case.