1994 (4) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispensation of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Inclusion of the cost of corrugated box packing in the value of goods for Central Excise duty purposes.
3. Applicability of precedent value of earlier interlocutory orders.
4. Financial hardship plea by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispensation of Pre-deposit:
M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., Allahabad, filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1-C.E.-ALLD/94, dated 7-1-1994, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. They also submitted a stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, seeking to dispense with the pre-deposit of Rs. 8,91,022.93. The Tribunal noted that the primary issue was the dispensation of pre-deposit and that the applicants claimed to have a prima facie strong case on merits.

2. Inclusion of Cost of Corrugated Box Packing:
The goods involved were torches and dry cell batteries, which were packed in corrugated boxes before dispatch from the factory. The learned SDR argued that the cost of corrugated box packing was includible in the value of the goods, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Ponds India Ltd. (1989) and other relevant cases. The Tribunal agreed that the packing in corrugated cartons was necessary for the goods to be sold in the wholesale market and thus includible in the value of the excisable goods, as per Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act.

3. Applicability of Precedent Value of Earlier Interlocutory Orders:
The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal order that had allowed their stay application under similar facts. However, the learned SDR contended that interlocutory orders had no binding precedent value, supported by the Supreme Court decision in Empire Industries Ltd. v. UOI (1985) and the Tribunal's decision in Nissan Rubber v. CCE (1993). The Tribunal concurred, stating that each Bench should independently decide on the merits of each case and that the earlier order had no binding effect on the present stay application.

4. Financial Hardship Plea by the Appellant:
The Tribunal noted that the applicants did not plead any financial hardship. The Tribunal emphasized the need for caution in passing interim orders in matters touching public revenue, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Union Territory of Pondicherry v. P.V. Suresh (1993).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the pre-deposit of the duty demanded would not cause undue hardship to the appellants. However, in the interest of justice, they ordered the appellants to deposit Rs. 5 lakh within 12 weeks, with the balance duty amount's pre-deposit being dispensed with and recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal. Failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time would result in the automatic vacation of the order and potential rejection of the appeal. The matter was scheduled for compliance after 15 weeks from the date of dispatch of the order.