2000 (3) TMI 420 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether the activities undertaken by the appellant amount to the manufacture of cryogenic tanks for storage of liquified nitrogen gas, pre-deposit requirements, applicability of penalties under Section 11AC, financial hardship claims, and the correctness of the Order-in-Original.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the appellant's actions constitute the manufacturing of cryogenic tanks for storing liquified nitrogen gas. The Order-in-Original asserts that the appellant engaged in activities amounting to manufacturing, while the appellant's representative argues that the tanks were either imported or procured in a complete state for their intended use. The advocate highlights that the installation at the buyers' premises merely involved connecting the tanks through pipelines, with all necessary components supplied by the foreign seller or a public sector unit. The distinction between cold converters and cryogenic tanks is also contested.

Regarding pre-deposit requirements, the appellant's legal counsel argues against the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC, citing the retrospective nature of the period involved. Additionally, the appellant claims severe financial hardship, presenting a substantial loss in their financial statements. They request a waiver of the pre-deposit amount based on the merits of their case and financial difficulties.

In contrast, the Departmental Representative contends that the appellant installed control, regulating, and measuring devices on the tanks during the installation period, essential for storing liquified nitrogen gas. The representative argues that the tanks, as received, were incomplete for this purpose and required additional components installed by the appellant. This stance supports the assertion of manufacturing activities by the appellant.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Order-in-Original lacks a detailed examination of the evidence presented by the appellant. The Commissioner's conclusion on the installation of pressure regulating devices is deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside the Order-in-Original and remands the matter for a thorough reevaluation by the Commissioner, emphasizing a detailed consideration of the evidence and technical literature on record.

In conclusion, the appeal is allowed by remand, and the stay application is disposed of accordingly, necessitating a fresh assessment of the issues at hand by the competent authority.