9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. 2. Interpretation of Customs Notification regarding exemption. 3. Time bar for invoking larger period in excise proceedings. 4. Financial hardship of the appellants. Analysis: 1. The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,83,27,528/- and Rs. 2 lakhs, respectively, in relation to imported medical equipment parts used for manufacturing DC Defibrillators. The Revenue contended that excise duty was applicable as the item was used externally for reviving heart patients, while the appellants argued it could be used both internally and externally. The Tribunal's Third Member dismissed the appeal, but the Apex Court stayed the operation of the order. The Commissioner also denied the benefit based on the components imported, following the Excise Commissioner's decision. 2. The Senior Counsel argued against invoking a larger period for excise duty demands, stating no suppression of facts occurred, and the goods were found eligible for exemption at clearance. The Tribunal had ruled against the appellants previously, but the Apex Court's stay on the order indicated a strong prima facie case in their favor. The Commissioner's decision to invoke a larger period due to a change in opinion regarding the equipment's use was challenged by the appellants, who asserted the equipment had both internal and external applications. The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit due to the split opinion and the appellants' financial hardship, allowing a stay on recovery until the appeal's disposal. 3. The learned JDR defended the order, emphasizing the Tribunal's ruling in a similar excise matter and asserting that without pleading financial hardship, the appellants should be held liable to protect revenue interests. However, the Senior Counsel highlighted the appellants' factory losses and inability to make deposits, citing financial hardship as a valid reason for waiver. The Tribunal's decision to grant waiver was based on the split opinion, the Apex Court's stay, and the appellants' strong prima facie case, indicating that the appellants had made a compelling argument for the waiver. 4. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay applications unconditionally, citing the split opinion, the Apex Court's stay, and the appellants' financial hardship as reasons for granting the waiver. The recovery was stayed until the appeal's disposal, with the option for either party to request early hearing post the Apex Court's decision on a similar matter under the Excise Notification, ultimately allowing the stay applications.
|
