2000 (7) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of appeal under Section 35F for non-compliance of interim stay order by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding pre-deposit of duty amount. Interpretation of charges including wharfage service, survey charges, and handling charges at Chennai Port. Consideration of pre-shipment costs and assessable value. Request for waiver of pre-deposit amount and stay of recovery. Remand of appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the challenge to the dismissal of an appeal under Section 35F due to non-compliance with an interim stay order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the pre-deposit of the duty amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the appellants to pre-deposit the entire duty amount based on prima facie findings that the appellants did not have a strong case for waiver and lacked financial hardship. The appellants argued that the charges in question, including wharfage service, survey charges, and handling charges at Chennai Port, were not to be included as they were only sea-freight charges deductible from the assessable value, citing a judgment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that these expenses were includible based on contractual terms, leading to the requirement for pre-deposit.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The appellants pleaded hardship, stating that their appeals were pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) with smaller amounts pre-deposited, while in this case, the amount was substantial. The appellants offered to pre-deposit a reduced amount of Rs. 1 lakh for the appeal to be heard, which was accepted by the Tribunal. Upon compliance with this pre-deposit, confirmation of duty was waived, and recovery stayed. The appellants also requested a remand of the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits, to which both sides agreed.

As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to accept the compliance report from the appellants and decide the case on merits after the specified time for pre-deposit. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by remand, providing the appellants with an opportunity for a fresh consideration of the case on its merits.