2006 (4) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications for recovery of duty and penalties imposed on the applicants due to alleged misuse of SSI exemption by floating front companies for compressing and bottling Hydrogen Gas.

Analysis:
The case involved four stay applications filed by the applicants to halt the recovery of duty and penalties imposed on them. The show cause notices alleged that the main company was engaged in manufacturing Hydrogen Gas and had floated three front companies to compress and bottle the gas with the intent to misuse the SSI exemption. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 12,63,598/- against the main company and imposed penalties on both the main company and the front companies. The applicants argued that the duty was wrongly demanded and penalties were imposed erroneously. They claimed that the companies were independent, had no common arrangements, and were not liable to pay duty for filling gas in cylinders as it was not a manufacturing process. They also cited financial hardships and stated that the companies were under BIFR and being revived.

The Revenue argued that the front companies were indeed floated by the main company, citing a Supreme Court decision that denied SSI exemption to companies filling gas if they shared staff, accounting, and directors with the manufacturing company. The Revenue contended that the front companies had common directors who were employees of the main company, and thus, the SSI exemption was not applicable in this case. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both sides and noted that the Commissioner had found evidence of common staff, operations, and financial assistance provided by the main company to the front companies. The Commissioner also found that the main company sold Hydrogen Gas to the front units at lower rates, misusing the SSI benefit. Despite contestations by the applicants, they failed to produce tangible evidence to counter these findings. The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the Commissioner's findings and directed the main company to pre-deposit 50% of the confirmed duty amount and the front companies to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty amount within six weeks to hear their appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the Commissioner's findings regarding the misuse of SSI exemption by the main company through the front companies. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the pre-deposit requirements for duty and penalties was based on the prima facie evidence presented and the lack of substantial evidence provided by the applicants to refute the Commissioner's findings. The case highlighted the importance of compliance with legal obligations and the consequences of failing to meet pre-deposit requirements within the specified period.