2008 (5) TMI 541 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of appeal period from the date of communication under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act.
2. Application for waiver and stay of pre-deposit of excise duty and penalty.
3. Expedited hearing of the appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Calculation of appeal period
The appeal was filed by M/s. Tata Construction & Projects Ltd. (in liquidation) against the Order-in-Original of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant, represented by counsel, argued that the appeal was within time as the Official Liquidator took charge of the company's affairs on 28-9-2007, and the appeal was filed on 12-10-2007. The Official Liquidator obtained the impugned order and sought permission from the Company Judge to file the appeal, which was granted on 14-5-2007. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, held that the appeal was not barred by limitation, as the period of limitation was to be computed from the date of communication under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, which was 28-9-2007 in this case.

Issue 2: Application for waiver and stay
The appellant was required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,97,626/- as excise duty and penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 35F of the Act. An application was made to waive the pre-deposit requirement. The appellant argued that the company was under proceedings before the BIFR and, after the winding-up order, the assets were to be dealt with under the Companies Act under the guidance of the Company Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant claimed that the dispute was related to the excisability of the fabricated structure and that the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal, considering the present status of the appellant-company, granted full waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and stayed the recovery of the duty amount until the appeal's disposal.

Issue 3: Expedited hearing
The Tribunal directed for the expedited hearing of the appeal, indicating the importance of resolving the matter promptly. The stay application was disposed of, and it was emphasized that the appeal proceedings should be expedited. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on the 19th day of May, 2008.