1994 (3) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of a stay order regarding the deposit of duty amount.
2. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Application of legal principles regarding undue hardship and stay of recovery proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The applicant sought modification of Stay Order No. 349/93-A, dated 28-10-1993, regarding the deposit of duty amount. The applicant argued that the total duty amount due was Rs. 1,10,000, out of which Rs. 2,87,500 had already been paid. The Tribunal had ordered the deposit of Rs. 1,10,000 considering the amount already paid and the limitation aspect. The Respondent opposed the modification. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the date of service of the order, and cited relevant case law from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court to support its decision not to modify the stay order.

Issue 2: The Tribunal analyzed Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which requires the appellant to deposit the disputed duty or penalty amount for the hearing of an appeal, with discretion given to the Tribunal to dispense with the pre-deposit in cases of undue hardship. The Tribunal emphasized the need to interpret the statute as a whole and cited legal precedents to support the principles governing the Tribunal's power to grant stay orders and conditions for such stays.

Issue 3: The Tribunal discussed the application of legal principles related to undue hardship and stay of recovery proceedings. It highlighted the requirement for a strong prima facie case for granting a stay and cited relevant judgments to emphasize the Tribunal's role in safeguarding the interests of both the appellant and the revenue. The Tribunal also noted the difference in appeal conditions between income tax cases and central excise cases, where pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts is mandatory for appeals in central excise matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal declined to modify the stay order, granting an extension of 10 weeks for the payment of the ordered amount. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions, case law, and principles governing the grant of stay orders in central excise matters.