2000 (12) TMI 111 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and its application in the case.
3. Assessment of the financial position of the petitioner in relation to the deposit of duty and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of the Tribunal's Order
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding the waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise had imposed duty and penalty on the petitioner for clearing C.I. Castings without payment of duty to another entity. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, directed the petitioner to deposit a specific amount towards duty and penalty. The Tribunal held that the basic liability to pay Central Excise Duty lies with the manufacturer. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, stating that no prima facie case was made out for a full waiver of duty and penalty. However, considering the financial position of the petitioner, the High Court directed a reduced deposit amount for the appeal to be taken up for disposal on merits.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 214/86-C.E.
The petitioner claimed exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. instead of Notification No. 84/94. The Commissioner found that the petitioner had not paid Central Excise duty due to wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, leading to the evasion of payment. The Tribunal considered the conflicting stands and concluded that the conditions of the Notification were not fulfilled by the petitioner, upholding the duty and penalty levied. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the Notification for claiming exemption.

Issue 3: Assessment of Financial Position
The High Court considered the financial aspects highlighted by the petitioner while determining the deposit amount towards duty and penalty. Despite agreeing with the Tribunal's decision on the lack of a prima facie case for a full waiver, the High Court took into account the petitioner's financial situation and directed a reduced deposit amount to meet the ends of justice. The High Court emphasized that the deposit should be made by a specified date for the appeal to proceed for disposal on merits, ensuring a fair consideration of the claims involved.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition in accordance with the directions provided regarding the deposit towards duty and penalty, emphasizing the importance of meeting the financial obligations while allowing the appeal to proceed for a detailed examination on merits.