2013 (11) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No.10/1997 - duty of laboratory furniture - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The appellant had cleared laboratory furnitures to various institutes - these institutes are covered under the notification and they have given the certificates - Whether the goods supplied would fall under the category of institution as contemplated under Notification No.10/97-CE is a debatable issue - the appellant has not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the entire amounts involved - the appellant directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000 upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed amounts under Notification No.10/1997-CE dated 01.03.97 for cleared furnitures; Prima facie case for complete waiver; Whether goods supplied to certain institutions fall under the category of institution as contemplated under the notification.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount, interest, and penalty confirmed against the appellant for clearing furnitures by availing ineligible benefit under Notification No.10/1997-CE. The Tribunal examined the records and noted that the appellant had supplied laboratory furnitures to various institutes covered under the notification, supported by certificates. However, doubts arose regarding whether goods supplied to specific institutions like Mahatama Gandhi Vidyamandir Pharmacy College, I.S.F. College of Pharmacy, Fortis Clinic Research Ltd., and Anil Products Ltd. qualified as institutions under the notification. The Tribunal found this to be a debatable issue, indicating that a prima facie case for complete waiver was not established by the appellant.

The Tribunal decided that the appellant should deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe and report compliance before a designated date. Upon compliance verification, the Tribunal would consider the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts, with recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal. This conditional directive aimed to ensure that the appellant fulfilled certain obligations before seeking a complete waiver, balancing the interests of both parties involved. The judgment emphasized the need for a structured approach in handling the appeal process, indicating a willingness to grant relief subject to procedural compliance and further review.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision reflected a nuanced evaluation of the waiver request, highlighting the importance of establishing a prima facie case and complying with specified conditions before seeking complete relief. The judgment underscored the Tribunal's role in adjudicating disputes fairly and transparently, ensuring that legal principles and procedural requirements were upheld throughout the appeal process.