2014 (5) TMI 378 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Clearances on principal to principal basis v/s job workers to principal basis - duty demand on differential value with interest & penalty - Duty evasion - Mis declaration of goods - Tribunal demanded 10% duty as pre deposit - Held that - neither of the two companies have either pleaded or proved any ground of financial hardship before the Tribunal. Even before us, no such case was made out - The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any material illegality. At this stage, it is not necessary to examine the contentions of the petitioners finally. A mere fact that the petitioners have prima facie case and some arguable points would not be the ground for insisting on waiver of entire pre-deposit. It was the discretion of the Tribunal in terms of the statutory provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to waive either full or partial pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal to safeguard the interest of Revenue having imposed certain conditions which cannot be stated to be so onerous that the petitioners cannot weigh them, granted waiver of the pre-deposit. - However, time period to make pre deposit is extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order on pre-deposit requirement pending appeal in Central Excise Act cases.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to the Tribunal's order regarding the pre-deposit requirement pending appeal in Central Excise Act cases. The case revolves around a company engaged in manufacturing plastic articles, which faced allegations of excise duty evasion. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a duty demand against the company, along with penalties. The company and another party challenged this order before the Tribunal, seeking a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal granted partial relief, requiring the deposit of a portion of the duty demand and penalties. The petitioners contested this decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in insisting on any pre-deposit. The judgment delves into the legal provisions under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, which mandate the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied pending appeal, unless waived by the Appellate Authority to prevent undue hardship. The Supreme Court's interpretations of "undue hardship" and the need to safeguard Revenue's interests are discussed, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case and financial hardship to justify a waiver.

The judgment highlights the Tribunal's discretion in deciding on pre-deposit waivers, considering factors like prima facie case and financial hardship. It references previous cases to underscore the importance of balancing undue hardship with Revenue protection. The Tribunal's decision to require pre-deposit, albeit a small portion, is deemed lawful, as it did not impose onerous conditions. The judgment also discusses a case where the Supreme Court refused to exempt appellants from depositing penalties due to lack of financial transparency. Ultimately, the High Court upholds the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the petitions challenging the pre-deposit requirement. The petitioners are granted an extension to make the required pre-deposit, allowing the Tribunal to proceed with hearing the appeals on their merits.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the legal nuances of pre-deposit requirements in Central Excise Act cases, emphasizing the need for a balance between undue hardship on appellants and safeguarding Revenue's interests. It underscores the Tribunal's discretion in granting waivers based on prima facie cases and financial circumstances. The High Court's decision to uphold the Tribunal's order and grant an extension for pre-deposit showcases a meticulous examination of the legal principles governing such appeals.