2000 (9) TMI 442 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.
2. Dispute over duty liability under the Compounded Levy Scheme.
3. Seizure of goods and financial hardship.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 98,14,200/- and penalties totaling Rs. 98,00,000/- imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. The appellant contended that they had complied with duty liabilities under the Compounded Levy Scheme for notified and non-notified goods separately. The appellant highlighted that separate returns were filed for notified and non-notified goods, and samples were regularly tested by central excise authorities. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's finding on exercising an option under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for non-notified goods was misconceived. The appellant also challenged the demand of duty for August 1997 at normal rates instead of under the Compounded Levy Scheme, citing relevant legal positions and circulars.

2. The Revenue, represented by a JDR, supported the Commissioner's findings and opposed the waiver of pre-deposit. The JDR reiterated the reasoning in the impugned order and argued against the appellant's claims. However, the Tribunal observed that the matter presented arguable points from both sides. Notably, goods valued at Rs. 61,23,225/- were seized by the Central Excise Authorities, causing severe financial constraints to the appellant. Acknowledging the financial hardship faced by the appellant due to the seized goods, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that public interest was safeguarded as the seized goods remained under the custody of the Department.

3. The Tribunal's decision to grant the waiver of pre-deposit was based on the financial hardship caused by the seizure of goods, despite the arguable nature of the case on merits. By ensuring the continued custody of the seized goods by the Department, the Tribunal aimed to balance the interests of both parties. The appeal was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date to delve deeper into the merits of the case. The judgment reflected a nuanced approach considering the complexities of the duty liability dispute and the practical implications of the seized goods on the appellant's financial situation.