2009 (10) TMI 680 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 - validity of demand in view of the financial hardship faced by the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Justification of Tribunal in asking for the deposit despite financial hardship and profit details.
3. Application of Notification No. 67 of 1995 regarding exemption for brass sheets and circles.
4. Tribunal's decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on duty rates for brass sheets.

Issue 1: Tribunal's direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs during the pendency of the appeal:
The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, challenging the Tribunal's order to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs within eight weeks. The Tribunal's decision was based on financial considerations despite the appellant's financial hardship, questioning the justification of the deposit amount.

Issue 2: Justification of Tribunal in asking for the deposit despite financial hardship and profit details:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal's directive to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs was unjustified given the financial constraints faced by the company, which had only made a profit of Rs. 30 lakhs in the relevant financial year. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of financial hardship.

Issue 3: Application of Notification No. 67 of 1995 regarding exemption for brass sheets and circles:
The Tribunal examined the applicability of Notification No. 67 of 1995, which provided an exemption for brass sheets and circles used in handicrafts and utensils. The appellant argued for the full exemption under this notification, which was considered by the Tribunal in its order.

Issue 4: Tribunal's decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on duty rates for brass sheets:
The Tribunal's decision was evaluated concerning the Supreme Court's ruling on duty rates for brass sheets intended for utensils or handicrafts. The appellant sought relief based on this ruling, emphasizing the applicability of Notification No. 67 of 1995 and challenging the Tribunal's directive to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs.

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal had considered the dispute and found a strong prima facie case for a demand of Rs. 23 lakhs based on Notification No. 67 of 1995. The Court noted that the appellant failed to provide material to challenge the Tribunal's findings, which were deemed as conclusions of fact. The Court found no legal questions involved and upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.