1990 (8) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Show-Cause-cum-Demand Notice issued by Superintendent of Central Excise.
2. Financial position of the appellant.
3. Jurisdiction over assessments and grant of stay.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Show-Cause-cum-Demand Notice
The case involved three appeals filed by M/s. Kay Bee Enterprises against an order by the Collector of Central Excise. The appellant argued that they were a small-scale industrial unit with provisional registration granted by the Industries Department. The appellant contended that the Show-Cause Notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, invoking the extended period of limitation, was void as per the amendment of law effective from December 27, 1985. The appellant relied on a Trade Notice and classification lists to support their claim. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, stating that the Collector of Central Excise should issue the Show-Cause Notice when invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Based on this legal position, the Tribunal found the Show-Cause Notice illegal and quashed it.

Issue 2: Financial Position of the Appellant
The appellant's financial position was also a point of contention. The appellant presented their balance sheet for the year ending March 31, 1989, showing a net profit and total capital of the partners. They argued for the grant of stay based on their financial status. While the respondent did not contest the financial aspect, they emphasized the need to ascertain whether the assessments were final or provisional. The Tribunal considered the financial details presented and the arguments made by both sides before making a decision.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Grant of Stay
Regarding jurisdiction and the grant of stay, the respondent left the matter to the discretion of the Bench but requested early hearing if a stay was granted. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and analyzing the facts and legal precedents, found that the appellant had a prima facie good case on merits. Citing judgments from the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of the duty amount and ordered that the Revenue authorities should not pursue recovery proceedings during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal allowed the Stay Applications and scheduled the appeal to be heard on September 12, 1990, with a directive against granting adjournments. Additionally, the respondent waived the right to file cross objections.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of the validity of the Show-Cause Notice, the appellant's financial position, and the grant of stay, providing detailed analysis and legal reasoning for each aspect of the case.