1999 (2) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of penalties on three firms and individuals involved.
2. Consideration of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalties.
3. Validity of adjudication order and show cause notice signatures.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Waiver of penalties on three firms and individuals involved

In a bunch of 15 appeals, the learned Advocate requested waiver of penalties imposed on three firms, namely MVC, FEL, and SMS, while mentioning the KVS Scheme applications of two individuals connected with the firms. The Tribunal considered the plea and noted the excess duty amount already deposited by the appellants before the show cause notice was issued. Citing precedents like M/s. R.S. Industries v. C.C.E., Calcutta-II, Sunsilk Dyeing & Printing Mills v. C.C.E., Vadodara, and Ramesh Kumar P. Sanghvi & Ors. v. C.C.E., Surat, the Tribunal agreed to waive penalties on the three firms based on the excess duty deposit.

Issue 2: Consideration of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalties

The Tribunal accepted the offer of pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh by the CHA firm, M/s. Alankar Shipping Agents Pvt. Ltd., for the penalties imposed on them. Upon compliance with this direction, the remaining penalty amount on the CHA firm and the penalty on the individual director, Shri K.K. Nair, were waived. The Revenue was debarred from recovering any further amount from these two individuals pending their appeals, ensuring a stay of recovery.

Issue 3: Validity of adjudication order and show cause notice signatures

The learned Advocate raised objections regarding the unsigned adjudication order and show cause notice. However, the JDR argued that the orders were validly signed by the Commissioner of Customs (P) and attested by the Superintendent of Customs (P). The Tribunal found merit in the waiver plea and did not delve deeper into the signature issue, as it was satisfied with the case for waiver and stay of penalties based on the arguments presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the waiver of penalties on the three firms and individuals, accepted the pre-deposit offer by the CHA firm, and directed a stay on further recovery pending appeals. The validity of the adjudication order and show cause notice signatures was not a decisive factor in the decision to grant the waivers and stays.