2002 (10) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty confirmed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.

Analysis:
The judgment involves three applications seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise. The Applicants, represented by a learned Senior Advocate, argued financial hardship due to a writ petition filed in the High Court of Calcutta and subsequent registration as a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act. The Senior Counsel relied on legal precedents, including the decision of the Supreme Court in Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank, emphasizing the need to stay recovery proceedings against sick industrial companies. Additionally, references were made to cases such as Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India and Vijay Packaging System Ltd. v. C.C. & C.E., A.P., where pre-deposit requirements were waived for sick companies.

The Revenue, represented by another Senior Advocate, opposed the waiver request, citing specific allegations of wilful misstatement in the show cause notice and invoking the extended period of limitation for demanding duty. However, the Applicants' counsel focused on the declaration of the Applicants as a sick industrial company to support the waiver request. The judgment highlighted that the Applicants did not provide submissions on the merit or the invokability of the extended period of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the duty demand and penalty due to the removal of fabrics by the Applicants without complying with the specified conditions.

The judgment considered both sides' submissions and referenced the Order of the Calcutta High Court regarding the reopening of periods beyond six months without allegations of fraud or collusion. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement for the duty and penalty, citing the declaration of the Applicants as a sick company by the BIFR and legal precedents where pre-deposit requirements were waived for similar cases. The appeals were scheduled for regular hearing on a specified date following the waiver decision.