1991 (11) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on applicants for sending raw materials to job workers without prior permission.
2. Demand of duty on plastic articles manufactured by applicants.
3. Application for waiver of predeposit and stay of penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of penalty on applicants for sending raw materials to job workers without prior permission.
The applicants, licensed manufacturers of travel goods component parts, faced penalties for not adhering to delivery schedules due to labor issues and increased demand. They engaged job workers without obtaining prior permission from the Collector, violating Rule 57F. Excise authorities raided their premises, leading to a penalty under Rule 173Q. The applicants sought waiver of predeposit and stay of the penalty, arguing that they were not manufacturers but suppliers of raw materials. The Tribunal acknowledged a prima facie case in their favor, waiving the predeposit and staying penalty recovery during the appeal.

Issue 2: Demand of duty on plastic articles manufactured by applicants.
The applicants, a Small Scale Industrial Unit, manufactured plastic articles for travel goods. These articles were exempt from duty under specific notifications. However, a demand for duty was raised by the Department, alleging non-direct manufacturing from raw materials under specific sub-headings. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty, and even ordered confiscation. The applicants challenged this, highlighting their compliance with declarations and exemption provisions. The Tribunal found a prima facie case in their favor, waiving predeposit of duty and penalty and staying recovery during the appeal.

Issue 3: Application for waiver of predeposit and stay of penalty.
Regarding the applicants' request for waiver of predeposit and stay of penalty, the Tribunal considered their arguments and the Department's contentions. The applicants' compliance with declaration requirements and exemption provisions supported their case. The Tribunal noted the absence of objections earlier and found the applicants not guilty of suppression or misdeclaration. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the predeposit of duty and penalty and stayed recovery during the appeal process for all relevant applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted relief to the applicants by waiving predeposit and staying penalty recovery during the appeal process for both issues related to penalty imposition and duty demand on plastic articles. The Tribunal's decision was based on the applicants' prima facie case and compliance with relevant provisions and declarations.