1999 (4) TMI 304 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, interpretation of previous Tribunal judgment, financial position of the appellant, request for further waiver of deposit.

1. Application for Waiver of Pre-deposit:
The Tribunal received an application from M/s Kores (I) Ltd. seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 99.39 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 47 lakhs confirmed by the impugned order. The Tribunal, after hearing submissions regarding the duty amount and the applicability of a previous judgment, directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 37 lakhs as a pre-condition to hearing the appeals. The Tribunal found it challenging to determine a prima facie ground on limitation due to unclear parts' identity covered by the judgment. The appellants deposited Rs. 10 lakhs and sought further waiver of the balance amount of Rs. 25 lakhs.

2. Interpretation of Previous Tribunal Judgment:
The appellant's counsel referenced the Tribunal's decision in Ingersoll-Rand (India) Ltd., upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that rods/pipes are not parts of drilling rigs. It was argued that nearly 75% of the goods involved would fall under this judgment, thereby not requiring their value to be included in the drilling rigs' value. However, the jurisdictional Commissioner's correspondence indicated a different opinion, suggesting that the specified parts were not covered by the cited judgment, raising doubts about the duty attracted by the goods.

3. Financial Position of the Appellant:
The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant's financial position did not allow for the full deposit amount ordered by the Tribunal. Despite presenting statistics and financial accounts, the Tribunal found no evidence of insufficient resources to deposit the remaining Rs. 25 lakhs. The Tribunal concluded that no prima facie case for hardship was established based on the available financial information.

4. Request for Further Waiver of Deposit:
After considering the arguments and circumstances, the Tribunal found that the logic behind the initially ordered deposit amount remained valid. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for further waiver but granted the appellants an extension until the end of April 1999 to deposit the remaining amount. The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to grant additional waivers beyond the extension provided.

In summary, the Tribunal analyzed the application for waiver of pre-deposit, the interpretation of a previous judgment, the appellant's financial position, and the request for further waiver of deposit. Despite the arguments presented, the Tribunal upheld the initial deposit requirement, granting only an extension for payment without further waivers.