1994 (10) TMI 73 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding waiver of pre-deposit of dues.
2. Dispute over excise duty and penalty levied by the Collector of Central Excise.
3. Inclusion of the amount charged for preparation of gravure printing cylinder in the excisable value of goods manufactured.
4. Failure to raise certain points before the Tribunal under Section 35F.
5. Allegation of financial hardship not raised before the Tribunal.
6. Interpretation of excisable value of goods based on specific facts of each case.
7. Justification of the Tribunal's decision and dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the excise duty and penalty levied by the Collector of Central Excise. The Tribunal, in part, accepted the petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues, allowing a reduced deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 out of the total amount due. The Tribunal specifically addressed the issue of whether the amount charged for the preparation of gravure printing cylinder should be included in the excisable value of the goods manufactured by the petitioner. The Tribunal found that the revenue had a prima facie case for raising the demand, indicating a potential inclusion of the charged amount in the excisable value.

The petitioner argued that the department was aware of the practice of charging customers for the cylinder preparation, limiting the period for which a demand could be raised. However, the Court noted that such arguments were not raised before the Tribunal under Section 35F, emphasizing that the Tribunal would examine factual issues if raised in the appeal. Additionally, the petitioner did not assert financial hardship before the Tribunal, a crucial factor in waiving pre-deposit conditions under Section 35F. The Court highlighted that without alleging financial constraints, it would be challenging to establish undue hardship justifying a waiver.

Regarding the inclusion of the cylinder preparation cost in the excisable value, the Court referenced previous cases to emphasize that the determination depends on specific manufacturing processes and products. The Tribunal's decision to refrain from detailed discussion on this matter during the waiver application stage was deemed appropriate, considering the prima facie case presented by the revenue. Ultimately, the Court found no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's order, dismissing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the lack of illegality or irregularity justifying intervention.