1992 (8) TMI 159 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for multiple petitioners based on a common impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications filed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty by four petitioners based on a common impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin. The petitioners, namely M/s. Premier Electronics, M/s. Universal Electronics, M/s. Supreme Electronics, and Electro Controls, sought relief from the duty and penalty imposed on them. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the main allegation in the show cause notice was against Shri Kochouseph, proprietor of M/s. Prompt India, and Managing Partner of M/s. Premier Electronics. They contended that duty on the other units was not leviable as there was no specific allegation against them as manufacturers. The counsel highlighted the absence of a quantified demand of duty against the other units and emphasized the financial hardship faced by M/s. Premier Electronics, which had been closed since May 1989. The counsel further argued that a notice to a Managing Partner should not be construed as a notice against the firm. On the other hand, the Department contended that even without a specific express allegation, the other units were liable to pay duty as manufacturers based on the show cause notice. The Department argued that any absence of such an allegation should be considered a technical irregularity. The Tribunal noted that the tax liability in the show cause notice had been significantly reduced in the adjudication order. The Tribunal highlighted that the main charge was against Shri Kochouseph and noted the absence of specific appeal by the Department against the findings. It was observed that the demand against M/s. Premier Electronics, with Shri Kochouseph as the Managing Partner, was sustainable. However, in the absence of specific allegations against the other units, the duty levied on them may not be sustainable. Considering the factual background, the duty amounts involved, and the allegation of suppression, the Tribunal directed M/s. Premier Electronics to pre-deposit the duty and penalty by a specified date, with a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery granted to the other units pending appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of duty and penalty waiver for multiple petitioners based on a common impugned order. It analyzed the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel regarding the absence of specific allegations against the other units and the financial hardship faced by M/s. Premier Electronics. The Department's contentions regarding the liability of the other units were also considered. The Tribunal emphasized the main charge against Shri Kochouseph and the sustainability of the demand against M/s. Premier Electronics. The decision provided specific directions for pre-deposit of duty and penalty for M/s. Premier Electronics while granting a waiver and stay of recovery for the other units pending appeal.