1998 (12) TMI 232 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of duty and penalty amount, quantification of demand based on alleged suppression of production and clearance, financial hardship of the appellants.

Waiver of Pre-Deposit and Stay of Duty and Penalty Amount:
The case involved applications arising from a common order for the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of duty and penalty amounts imposed on the appellants. The department alleged that the appellants had suppressed production and clearance, wrongly claimed exemption, and engaged in clandestine removal. The department relied on statements of employees and documents to support their claims. The appellants argued against the department's approach, highlighting errors in quantification and lack of consideration for certain aspects. They also pleaded financial hardship, stating their units had been closed, and their income was minimal. The appellants had already deposited a partial amount towards duty. The tribunal found that the appellants had not presented their case effectively regarding the quantification of the demand. Despite the financial hardship plea, the tribunal directed the main appellant to make a further deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs by a specified date, with the option of paying in installments. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty for all appellants was waived, and recovery stayed.

Quantification of Demand Based on Alleged Suppression of Production and Clearance:
The department's case was based on material evidence, including documents maintained by the appellants themselves, such as registers and notebooks. The department alleged that the appellants had suppressed production and clearance, leading to the imposition of duty and penalty. The appellants challenged the department's approach, pointing out errors in the quantification of the demand and the lack of consideration for certain products not belonging to them. The tribunal noted that the question of the validity of the demand hinged on the appreciation of evidence, including statements from employees and the power of attorney confirming entries in documents. The tribunal found that no prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit on merits could be established, considering the corroborating evidence. Despite the appellants' financial hardship, the tribunal directed a further deposit by the main appellant, with the option of installment payments, before waiving the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty.

Financial Hardship of the Appellants:
The appellants, small units with limited income, pleaded financial hardship in paying the duty and penalty amounts. The main appellant had already deposited a partial amount towards duty. The tribunal acknowledged the financial situation of the appellants, noting that the main appellant's income was derived from renting out properties. Despite the financial constraints highlighted by the appellants, the tribunal directed a further deposit by the main appellant, with the option of installment payments, before waiving the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty for all appellants, and staying the recovery process.