1995 (4) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of excise duty on post-manufacturing activities.
2. Allegations of under-statement in price lists.
3. Consideration of undue hardship and liquidity position for pre-deposit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Calculation of excise duty on post-manufacturing activities
The appellant, a carpet manufacturer, argued that fixing and laying out charges of carpets at various places post-manufacturing do not attract excise duty. The appellant contended that recovery from purchasers for such activities should not be subject to excise duty. The adjudicating authority's calculation of post-manufacturing expenses and deductions were challenged on grounds of denial of natural justice and non-application of mind. The appellant claimed to have a separate class of buyers, including airlines and hotels, justifying the post-manufacturing charges. The adjudicating authority's reliance on advice without independent assessment was criticized. The appellant's plea for stay was based on the unit's sick status and limitations on merits.

Issue 2: Allegations of under-statement in price lists
The respondent argued that the appellant understated prices in part II price lists, suggesting a discrepancy between part I and part II pricing for the same goods. It was contended that no prudent businessman would sell goods below cost price. The respondent emphasized the significance of accurate costing and pricing in determining excise duty liability. The respondent opposed the stay applications, citing the differences in pricing lists and the need for excise duty on post-manufacturing activities.

Issue 3: Consideration of undue hardship and liquidity position for pre-deposit
The Tribunal considered the appellant's liquidity position, noting the unit's sick status and approval for rehabilitation by the BIFR. Citing precedents, the Tribunal acknowledged the concept of undue hardship under the Central Excises and Salt Act. In light of the appellant's circumstances, a pre-deposit of the full duty and penalty amounts was deemed unduly burdensome. Instead, the Tribunal ordered a partial deposit of Rs. 20,00,000.00 within four months, with flexibility for installment payments. The Tribunal directed a stay on recovery proceedings during the appeal period, subject to compliance with the deposit terms. Non-compliance would automatically vacate the stay order, with a compliance report due in five months.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed the complex issues of excise duty calculation on post-manufacturing activities, alleged under-statement in price lists, and the consideration of undue hardship for pre-deposit in a comprehensive manner, balancing legal principles with the appellant's circumstances and legal precedents.