1994 (10) TMI 130 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods in question are marketable and liable for excise duty.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation is applicable in this case.
3. Whether the appellants should be required to pre-deposit the penalty amount.
4. Whether the stay applications filed by the appellants should be granted.

Analysis:
1. The appellants argued that the goods, namely Beams and Girders, are not marketable, and therefore, no duty should be levied. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in The Indian Cable Company Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise, emphasizing the importance of marketability for determining excisability. They also claimed lack of mens rea and wilful neglect on their part, asserting their bona fides. The appellants' representatives pleaded against the imposition of a penalty, citing financial hardship and losses in their Balance Sheet for the relevant period.

2. The advocate for M/s. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. contended that the goods were not marketable, referencing the same legal precedents as the senior advocate for the appellants. He raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the demand should be restricted to a shorter period due to the absence of a written communication from the Director General, Anti-Evasion. The advocate highlighted the financial difficulties faced by the appellants and proposed a limited deposit to avoid undue hardship.

3. The Respondent, represented by Shri R.K. Kapoor, supported the Collector's order, asserting that the goods were marketable and that the extended period of limitation could be invoked. He cited legal cases to strengthen the Revenue's position on the merit of the case. The Respondent argued against the grant of stay applications, advocating for the rejection of the same.

4. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides, including legal references to establish the marketability of goods and the applicability of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged the financial hardships faced by the appellants and decided not to require a full pre-deposit of the penalty amount for Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation. For U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., a conditional pre-deposit was ordered, along with the provision of a bank guarantee. The Tribunal granted a stay on recovery proceedings during the appeal period and set compliance deadlines for the appellants. The matters were scheduled for further mention on a specified date.