2001 (1) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition seeking to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods.
3. Financial hardship due to factory closure.
4. Consideration of weighbridge procedural infraction.

Analysis:
1. The Stay Petition requested the Appellate Tribunal to waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants argued that the duty was demanded without providing any supporting data and was based on presumption. They highlighted a procedural infraction where they had to use a weighbridge different from the one approved due to urgency in clearing hazardous goods. The financial hardship was emphasized due to factory closure following a ban on tree felling in the region, preventing them from making the required deposit. The Tribunal considered previous cases where pre-deposit was waived due to extended factory closures.

2. The Revenue opposed the unconditional stay, citing findings of clandestine removal of goods in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. However, the Tribunal noted that the allegations were based on presumptions and that the appellants had made a prima facie case in their favor. The Tribunal acknowledged the hazardous nature of the product and the necessity to use an alternate weighbridge in case of malfunction. The financial hardship caused by the factory closure was deemed a significant factor in the decision-making process.

3. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had a valid case for dispensing with the pre-deposit condition. Considering the procedural infraction regarding the weighbridge, the lack of concrete evidence for clandestine removal, and the financial hardship faced by the appellants due to the factory closure, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petition unconditionally. It ordered that the duty and penalty need not be paid during the appeal process, taking into account the unique circumstances presented by the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's considerations, and the ultimate decision to grant an unconditional stay on the pre-deposit condition.