1995 (9) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit amounts.
2. Classification of flat rolled products as bars or flats.
3. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 202/88-C.E.
4. Financial condition of the appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to stay petitions filed for the waiver of pre-deposit amounts totaling Rs.1,94,674.08 and Rs.4,47,763.69, arising from a dispute regarding the classification of flat rolled products used in the manufacture of steel tubes. The appellants argued that the flat rolled products were described as bars in their declaration under Rule 57G, but the Department considered them as flats, leading to a demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants claimed entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20th May, 1988, regardless of the classification issue, asserting that the government revenue would not be affected. Additionally, they highlighted their financial losses to support the request for a waiver of the pre-deposit amount.

The respondent opposed the stay applications, emphasizing the distinction between bars and flats and contending that the appellants could have amended their declaration to rectify the classification discrepancy. The respondent argued that the duty was rightfully payable based on the lower authorities' findings, urging the rejection of the stay petitions.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted the conflicting practices in the classification of the product across different Collectorates. The Tribunal observed that if the input was treated as bars, as per a previous Tribunal ruling, the appellants' existing declaration sufficed. Alternatively, if classified as flats, the duty paid on tubes would be reimbursable under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. The Tribunal also acknowledged the appellants' unsound financial position and, based on these circumstances, waived the pre-deposit amount and stayed the recovery proceedings pending the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appellants' stay petitions, emphasizing the importance of the classification issue, the applicability of the notification, and the appellants' financial hardship as decisive factors in the decision to waive the pre-deposit amount and halt the recovery proceedings.