2010 (1) TMI 999 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the eligibility for SSI Exemption, confirmation of demand for duty, imposition of penalties under Rule 173(Q), and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in passing the order.

Eligibility for SSI Exemption and Demand for Duty:
The appeals were filed against the Commissioner's findings that the appellant firms are interlinked, manufacturing common items with a common brand name, and thus not eligible for SSI Exemption. The demand for duty of Rs. 56,48,321/- was confirmed, and penalties under Rule 173(Q) were imposed on the appellants.

Jurisdictional Issue and Stay Petition:
The advocate argued that there was a difference of opinion regarding whether the order amounted to remand or setting aside the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner. The matter was referred to a third member for a decision. The advocate contended that if the third member agrees with the Member Judicial, the impugned order would be invalid for being passed without jurisdiction. It was argued that since there was a difference of opinion, a stay should be granted as it is settled law that when two views are possible, a stay is required. The Tribunal agreed that the case is arguable, and therefore, the stay petition was allowed. The requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived, and stay was granted during the pendency of the appeal.

This judgment highlights the issues related to the eligibility for SSI Exemption, confirmation of demand for duty, imposition of penalties, and the jurisdictional matter concerning the order passed by the Commissioner. The advocate argued for a stay based on the difference of opinion regarding the nature of the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the possibility of the impugned order being without jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed that the case is arguable and granted a stay, waiving the pre-deposit requirement for duty and penalty during the appeal process.