1995 (3) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay application under Section 35F of the CESA, 1944 for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amount.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Bharat Berg Ltd., filed a stay application under Section 35F of the CESA, 1944, seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amount of Rs. 8,84,194.44. The appellant contended that they were a sick unit incurring losses and relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their case. The respondent argued that the inputs were not used in the manufacture of the final product and referred to relevant legal provisions and case laws to oppose the stay application. The appellant further cited the Calcutta High Court's decision to strengthen their argument regarding financial hardship.

The Tribunal examined the matter in detail, focusing on whether the inputs were used in the manufacture of the final product. It was found that some inputs received were found unfit for the Galvanising process and were sold as waste and scrap after cutting. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's observation on scrap and analyzed the relevant legal provisions regarding disposal of inputs not specified. The Tribunal also considered previous Tribunal decisions regarding treatment of off-cuts as waste and scrap.

The Tribunal emphasized that when Central Excise duty is required to be paid on removal, no extra burden is imposed on the goods or the manufacturer who already availed credit under the Modvat scheme. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments of financial hardship, considering the company's production and sales figures. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had no case on merits, limitation, or financial hardship. The stay application was denied, directing the appellant to deposit the full duty amount within a specified period, failing which the appeal would be liable for rejection.

In light of the above analysis and considerations, the Tribunal found no grounds for waiving the pre-deposit of the duty amount or staying its recovery. The appellant was instructed to deposit the full duty amount within a specified timeframe, with compliance scheduled for a later date.