9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of soap stock for excise duty. 2. Financial hardship of the petitioner in relation to the pre-deposit of duty. 3. Applicability of B.I.F.R. regulations on recovery of dues. Issue 1: Classification of soap stock for excise duty: The petitioner, a company manufacturing Banaspati Ghee, used soap stock as a by-product for manufacturing acid oil. Central Excise authorities contended that soap stock was excisable under Tariff Heading No. 1507.00 and demanded duty. The petitioner declared the value of soap stock at Rs. 400 per tonne, but authorities claimed the actual value was Rs. 7,620 per tonne. The adjudicating authority set the value at Rs. 6,350 per metric tonne, leading to a demand of Rs. 8,82,364 for differential duty. The petitioner appealed against this decision. Issue 2: Financial hardship of the petitioner: The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed duty amount. The petitioner argued financial hardship due to being declared a sick industrial company with eroded net worth and cash losses. The Commissioner considered the petitioner's financial position based on available funds and income, concluding that the petitioner was not suffering from financial hardship. The petitioner sought waiver of the pre-deposit condition, which was partially granted. Issue 3: Applicability of B.I.F.R. regulations on recovery of dues: The petitioner contended that being a sick unit under B.I.F.R., recovery of dues required prior permission. The court noted that no recovery was being pressed against the petitioner and stated that only dues included in a sanctioned scheme were covered by the bar in Regulation 22 of B.I.F.R. regulations. As the excise duty dues were not part of a sanctioned scheme, relief under B.I.F.R. regulations was not granted. The court emphasized that each case under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act should be considered individually. It highlighted the need for exceptional circumstances to grant stay of recovery of tax. In this case, as the petitioner had liquid funds and the disputed amount was relatively small, full waiver was not deemed necessary. The court dismissed the petition, extending the time for depositing the duty amount. The judgment clarified the application of B.I.F.R. regulations and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the pre-deposit of duty.
|
