1995 (2) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed by M/s. Swaraj Mazda Limited challenging the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.
2. Whether the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise duty on the completed motor vehicles with body built on the chassis.
3. Applicability of the exemption under Serial No. 17 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 to the manufacturer of chassis used in public transport type passenger motor vehicles.
4. Consideration of the appellants being a sick unit and their financial position.

Analysis:

1. M/s. Swaraj Mazda Limited filed 8 appeals challenging the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, and also filed stay applications under Section 35F of the Act seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,39,65,986.89. The appellants argued that they were only acting as traders in the body building activity and relied on legal precedents to support their position.

2. The appellants contended that they were manufacturers of motor vehicle chassis and sold completed vehicles with body built on their chassis. The Revenue argued that the sale was of the completed vehicle and not the chassis, and the exemption under Notification No. 162/86-C.E. was not applicable to them as manufacturers of chassis used in public transport type passenger motor vehicles.

3. The Tribunal observed that the sale was of the completed motor vehicle with the body built on the chassis produced by the appellants. The Tribunal also noted the financial position of the appellants and directed them to deposit Rs. 1,20,00,000 out of the total duty amount within a specified time, granting a waiver of the balance amount subject to compliance.

4. The Tribunal considered the appellants' plea of being a sick unit but emphasized that the duty payments were not dispensable based on their financial status. The Tribunal's decision was based on a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances, balancing the interests of the appellants and the Revenue.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated time, granting a waiver of the remaining duty amount subject to compliance. Failure to adhere to the order would result in the automatic vacation of the stay order and possible dismissal of the appeals.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues raised in the judgment and the Tribunal's reasoning behind its decision, considering both legal arguments and factual circumstances.