2006 (8) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty and cess on black tea.
2. Reduction of penalty.
3. Claim for exemption under Notification No. 41/99-C.E.
4. Evidence of undertaking to Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner.
5. Financial hardships pleaded by the appellants.
6. Pre-deposit of duty and cess.
7. Stay of recovery in respect of penalty amount.
8. Clubbing of similar cases for hearing.

Analysis:

1. Demand of duty and cess on black tea:
The lower authorities demanded duty and cess on black tea from the appellants for a specific period. The penalty initially imposed was reduced by the first appellate authority. The appellants sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery for the amounts demanded.

2. Reduction of penalty:
The penalty imposed on the appellants was initially Rs. 10,000/-, which was reduced to Rs. 1,000/- by the first appellate authority. The present application included a request for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery for the penalty amount.

3. Claim for exemption under Notification No. 41/99-C.E.:
The appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 41/99-C.E., dated 26-11-99. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had not fulfilled the substantive condition of providing an undertaking to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as specified in the Notification.

4. Evidence of undertaking to Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner:
The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of the undertaking specified in the Notification being received by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. A mere certificate of posting was deemed insufficient to prove receipt of the undertaking. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the date of the undertaking for the commencement of the benefit of exemption from duty.

5. Financial hardships pleaded by the appellants:
The appellants pleaded financial hardships, citing a slump in the market that would cause undue hardship if they were required to pay the duty. However, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence of financial hardships presented in the case.

6. Pre-deposit of duty and cess:
Despite the appellants' pleas, the Tribunal directed them to pre-deposit the duty and cess amounts within a specified period. The Tribunal acknowledged the financial constraints but still required compliance with the pre-deposit directive.

7. Stay of recovery in respect of penalty amount:
In the event of due compliance with the pre-deposit directive, the Tribunal indicated that there would be a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the penalty amount imposed on the appellants.

8. Clubbing of similar cases for hearing:
The SDR suggested hearing and disposing of 30 similar cases together for efficiency. The Tribunal accepted this suggestion and directed the registry to list all the cases for final hearing on a specified date.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, providing a detailed insight into the Tribunal's findings and directives related to the case.