2009 (5) TMI 629 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Whether the demand is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of Customs and Central Excise duty.
3. Whether the proceeding is barred by jurisdiction.
4. Whether the appellant is entitled to depreciation benefits.
5. Whether the duty imposed for violation of terms of import is justifiably recoverable.
6. Whether the case is a fit for waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the demand is barred by limitation due to a financial crisis that prevented them from fulfilling export obligations. The appellant's unit faced difficulties when the bank did not provide working capital, leading to the machinery being hypothecated with a bank. However, the tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate how they would safeguard the revenue's interest. The tribunal did not consider the case a fit for waiver of pre-deposit, directing the appellant to make the entire deposit within four weeks.

2. The appellant requested a waiver of pre-deposit of Customs and Central Excise duty during the appeal's pendency. The tribunal noted the arguments presented by both sides, including the appellant's financial hardships and the revenue's interest. Despite the appellant's claims, the tribunal found no sufficient evidence to support a waiver of pre-deposit. The tribunal directed the appellant to make the full deposit as per the order of adjudication within a specified timeframe.

3. The jurisdictional issue was raised by the appellant, contending that the proceeding was barred by jurisdiction. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's concerns but stated that a detailed examination would be conducted during the appeal hearing. The tribunal noted that the Custom authorities are also notified as Excise authorities for effective implementation. However, at the interim stage, the tribunal found no grounds to support the appellant's argument for waiver of pre-deposit.

4. The appellant claimed entitlement to depreciation benefits, but the tribunal did not find sufficient evidence or arguments to support this claim. The tribunal focused on the financial hardships faced by the appellant and the lack of measures taken to protect the revenue's interest. As a result, the tribunal directed the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement within the specified timeline.

5. The duty imposed for the violation of terms of import was deemed justifiably recoverable by the tribunal. The tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Departmental Representative regarding the violation of requirements and the cancellation of the Letter of Permission. Physical verification revealed no stock in the factory, supporting the imposition of duty. The tribunal referenced previous cases to support the decision not to waive the pre-deposit.

6. Overall, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit. The tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement as directed, following the precedent set by the Apex Court in a previous case.

← Previous Next →