2003 (9) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Mumbai: Duty Deposit, Capacity Determination, Financial Hardship, Health Stay Application

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed various issues including waiver of duty deposit, determination of capacity and duty payable, disposal of ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Waiver of deposit of duty and penalty.2. Determination of capacity and duty payable.3. Disposal of representation by the Commissioner.4. Financial hardship claimed by one of the partners.5. Stay application due to health reasons of a partner.Issue 1: Waiver of deposit of duty and penaltyThe appellant, engaged in processing textile fabrics, applied for determination of capacity based on specific rules. The Commissioner determined duty payable, which the appellant did not discharge but claimed to have paid based on actual clearances. Three notices were issued demanding the unpaid duty and proposing penalties. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty and imposed a penalty requiring deposit.Issue 2: Determination of capacity and duty payableThe appellant requested determination of duty based on actual production after initial capacity determination. However, the appellant failed to provide material supporting this claim. The appellant contended that excluding certain rail length would reduce duty, but specifics were not provided. The Tribunal found some reduction in duty appropriate. Financial hardship was claimed due to production stoppage, but evidence supporting this claim was deemed insufficient.Issue 3: Disposal of representation by the CommissionerThe appellant contended that the order was bad in law as the Commissioner did not dispose of a representation made in accordance with a High Court interim order. The Tribunal found this contention prima facie unacceptable, as the High Court's final order dismissed the writ petition. The Tribunal noted that the interim order would have merged with the final order.Issue 4: Financial hardship claimed by one of the partnersOne partner claimed financial hardship due to production stoppage and limited income. However, the Tribunal found this claim unconvincing, stating that each partner is liable for partnership firm dues. The evidence presented, including an income tax return, was insufficient to prove the claimed financial difficulties.Issue 5: Stay application due to health reasons of a partnerThe stay application hearing was adjourned due to one partner's health issues. A medical certificate was produced, stating the partner's illnesses. The Tribunal expressed doubts about the certificate's authenticity, considering the seriousness of the reported illnesses. The Tribunal decided to report the facts to the Indian Medical Council for further action regarding the physician who issued the certificate.This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed multiple issues, including waiver of duty deposit, determination of capacity and duty payable, disposal of representation by the Commissioner, financial hardship claims, and a stay application due to health reasons. The Tribunal analyzed each issue thoroughly, considering the evidence presented and legal implications. The decision highlighted the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims, the merging of interim orders with final judgments, and the authenticity of medical certificates in legal proceedings.