1992 (12) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount under Rule 57(i) read with Section 11 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Allegation of non-filing of declaration of input under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Prima facie case for dispensing with the requirement of deposit of duty.
4. Difference of opinion between Members on the pre-deposit of duty amount.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,50,523/- for the period 13-1-1991 to 19-6-1991 under Rule 57(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The dispute arises from the alleged non-filing of a declaration of input under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 related to the purchase of copper wire. The applicants contend that the deletion of certain entries from the declaration was inadvertent and should not disqualify them from claiming Modvat credit.

2. The applicants argue that they had filed the necessary declaration and had been regularly filing returns showing all inputs, including the one in question. They had also received permission from the Assistant Collector to utilize Modvat credit until a specified date. The inadvertent deletion of entries by their clerk, according to the applicants, should not invalidate their claim for Modvat credit.

3. The Member (Judicial) finds that the deletion of entries was a technical mistake and not a deliberate attempt to avoid declaration. The Member emphasizes that the documents submitted by the applicants demonstrate their compliance with the rules and the permission granted by the Assistant Collector. The balance of convenience and hardship favors the applicants, leading to the decision to allow the stay application and dispense with the pre-deposit of the balance duty amount demanded.

4. However, the Member (Technical) disagrees with the finding of a prima facie case for dispensing with the duty deposit. The Member argues that the deletion of entries was not innocent and questions the applicants' claim of being misguided by authorities. The Member suggests that the issue should be examined further during the final hearing of the appeal.

5. Due to the difference of opinion between Members, the matter is referred to a Third Member, who later concurs with the Member (Judicial) that the deletion of entries was unintentional and technical in nature. The Third Member agrees that the pre-deposit of the balance duty should be dispensed with, considering the undue hardship it would impose on the applicants.

In conclusion, the Third Member's decision prevails, and the pre-deposit of the balance duty amount is dispensed with, with recovery stayed pending the appeal process.