9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act ), praying for waiver of the pre-deposit of the Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 2,39,65,986.89 and for staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeals. 2. All the 8 stay applications were heard on 25-1-1995 when Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate briefly narrated the facts of the case. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle chassis which were sent to M/s. Sutlej Coach Builders for body building. The ownership of the Chassis and the built-up vehicle remained with the appellants. After the body is built on the chassis, the completed vehicle was delivered by the coach builder to the appellant, or as per their directions, and the ownership of the completed vehicle at all times vested in the appellant. Relying upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned that the unit was a sick unit as per BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction). 3. Shri R.K. Kapoor, the learned SDR replied that the appellants were the manufacturers of motor vehicle chassis and sold the completed vehicle with body built on their chassis. The goods manufactured were the completed vehicle and it was the completed vehicle with built-in body that was contracted for sale. It is not a case of sale or purchase of chassis but sale and purchase of completed vehicle. The appellants were charging more from their customers than what they paid to the body builder. The facts in this case were different from the facts in the case of TELCO v. Union of India, 1988 (35) E.L.T. 617 (Patna). The learned SDR submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 10000 on road automobiles (page 21 of their 1994 Annual Report). 5. We find that in the applicants own case in Appeal No. E/149/94-C, their stay application had come up before the Tribunal on 4-4-1994 when similar arguments were advanced in support of their plea for stay of the Central Excise duty amount of Rs. 2,75,31,417/-. Para 3 from the Stay Order No. 52/94-C passed by the Tribunal is extracted below :- We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The issue involved in the case being contentious can be decided only on the basis of detailed arguments by both sides during the hearing of the appeal. For these reasons it cannot be said that the applicants have a strong prima facie case on merits. However, having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay not be proper. We may, however, observe that the case law cited by the learned Advocate does not appear to advance the case of the appellants for full waiver of the pre-deposit of duty amount. 7. As regard the plea of being sick unit we find that the applicants had already collected more amount from their customers than paid to the body builder by them. We have, however, noted that prima facie the Central Excise duty paid by the body builder may be available for credit to the applicant. It is also seen that the reference before the BIFR was based on the accounts for the year ended 31-3-1993 (page 20 of the Annual Report 1994), and that during 1993-94, their income has gone up from Rs. 89 crores in 1992-93 to Rs. 114 crores in 1993-94 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
