2010 (11) TMI 912 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Waiver of duty demand and penalty based on related person status with another company, applicability of earlier Stay Order, control and financial management by another company, undue hardship due to predeposit.

Analysis:

1. Waiver of Duty Demand and Penalty: The applicant sought waiver of duty demand and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,51,90,813.00 for the period from 1-6-2005 to 31-12-2007, contending that the demand was raised based on being a related person of another company. The Tribunal examined the agreement between the applicant and the other company, noting substantial loans, provision of machinery, and control exercised by the other company over the applicant's activities. The Commissioner's findings supported the related person status, as evidenced by extensive control and financial management by the other company. The Tribunal found the transactions not at arm's length and upheld the Commissioner's findings, refusing to waive the duty demand and penalty.

2. Applicability of Earlier Stay Order: The applicant relied on an earlier Stay Order in a similar case, arguing for waiver of predeposit based on a Tribunal decision related to the same issue. The Tribunal scrutinized the earlier Stay Order and the facts of the present case, finding discrepancies in the evidence and the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. Despite the applicant's plea for consistency with the earlier order, the Tribunal emphasized a detailed analysis of the current case's facts and circumstances, leading to a decision requiring a partial predeposit.

3. Control and Financial Management by Another Company: The Tribunal delved into the control and financial management exerted by the other company over the applicant, highlighting instances of loan provision, machinery supply, and approval requirements for various expenses. The Commissioner's findings supported the extensive control exercised by the other company, indicating a relationship beyond arm's length. The Tribunal, after thorough examination of the documents and agreements, upheld the related person status, emphasizing the lack of evidence refuting the findings.

4. Undue Hardship Due to Predeposit: The applicant, a small-scale unit, argued that any predeposit would cause undue hardship, especially considering the Tribunal's previous waiver in a similar matter. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the applicant's financial position, including substantial income and bank deposits, determined that a partial predeposit of Rs. 50 lakhs was appropriate. The Tribunal balanced the applicant's hardship claim with the overall circumstances of the case, ultimately granting a waiver of the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty subject to the specified predeposit.