2005 (2) TMI 719 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against demand of duty and penalty by the company and its Managing Director.
2. Excisability of 'Signages' put up by the company in retail outlets of IOCL.
3. Rejection of Company's plea regarding excisability and imposition of penalties.
4. Compliance with Board's order dated 15-1-2002 and relevant case law.
5. Granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.
6. Consideration of cited Supreme Court decisions by the Commissioner.
7. Examination of evidence including pictures of 'Signages' and the fabrication process.

Analysis:
1. The company and its Managing Director appealed against a demand of duty amounting to over Rs. 99 lakhs and penalties of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs, respectively. The company challenged the excisability of 'Signages' erected in IOCL outlets, while the Managing Director contested the penalty imposed. They also sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

2. The adjudicating authority rejected the company's argument that 'Signages' were not excisable as they were immovable. The Commissioner disregarded the company's reliance on the Board's order dated 15-1-2002 and distinguished previous decisions cited by the assessee. Consequently, duty on 'Signages' was upheld, and penalties were imposed on the company and its Managing Director.

3. The Tribunal noted that the excisability of 'Signages' should have been thoroughly assessed by the Commissioner in line with the Board's guidelines and relevant Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not adequately consider the cited decisions and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery based on the evidence presented, including pictures of the 'Signages' and the fabrication process.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of carefully examining the excisability issue and the need to consider relevant legal precedents. They found merit in the assessee's challenge against the dutiability of the items, leading to the decision to grant the waiver and stay of recovery. Additionally, the early-hearing applications were allowed due to the significant revenue implications of the case.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted relief to the appellants by allowing the waiver of pre-deposit, stay of recovery, and early hearing of the appeals. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on a specified date, considering the substantial amounts involved and the complexity of the legal issues at hand.