1992 (6) TMI 136 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application against order demanding duty and penalty under Central Excise Rules - Pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 35F - Alleged financial hardship - Allegation of forged document - Violation of principles of natural justice - Cross-examination of witnesses - Handwriting Expert's opinion - Prima facie case for dispensing with pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two applications challenging an order demanding duty and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, seeking dispensation of pre-deposit under Section 35F based on alleged financial hardship and a prima facie case. The appellants argued that a statement was a forged document and there was a violation of natural justice as they were not provided with copies of statements or allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The appellants, running a small Bidi factory, cited financial constraints due to family size and income. The Collector had given opportunities for hearings, and witnesses were summoned for cross-examination, with some being cross-examined. The Handwriting Expert's opinion was submitted post-adjudication order, and the plea of a forged document was not raised during proceedings.

The tribunal considered the submissions and facts, observing that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for dispensing with pre-deposit. However, in the interest of justice, appellant No. (1) was directed to deposit Rs. 9 lakhs for duty, waiving the penalty pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs. The deposit deadline was set, with non-compliance leading to appeal dismissal. For appellant No. (2), the pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh penalty was unconditionally waived, considering all circumstances of the case. The judgment balanced the financial constraints of the appellants with the procedural fairness and legal requirements, leading to a differential decision on pre-deposit requirements based on individual circumstances and merits of the case.