Tribunal requires deposit to stay order on forged shipping bills.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications for waiver of pre-deposit, directing the appellant company and directors to make specified deposits to stay the impugned order. Issues regarding forged shipping bills, liability as a manufacturer, exemption from excise duty, financial condition, and pre-deposit were comprehensively addressed in the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interim stay of the impugned order on central excise duty demand and penalties.
2. Allegations of forged shipping bills and non-shipment of goods.
3. Liability of the appellant company as a manufacturer.
4. Exemption from excise duty under notification No. 1/95-C.E.
5. Financial condition of the appellant company.
6. Waiver of pre-deposit for the appellant company and directors.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interim Stay
The appellant sought interim stay of the order confirming the demand of central excise duty and penalties. The Commissioner found discrepancies in shipping bills, alleging forgery and non-shipment of goods. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, directed the appellant to deposit the entire central excise duty amount within 12 weeks to stay the order. The directors were granted interim stay subject to depositing a specified amount within six weeks.

Issue 2: Allegations of Forged Shipping Bills
The Commissioner found that shipping bills were forged, with fake bills of lading obtained to show goods as physically exported. Signatures on bills by Preventive Officer were deemed forged, and no goods were shipped for export, as confirmed by investigations and reports. Cross-examination requests were partially allowed, revealing discrepancies in signatures on shipping bills.

Issue 3: Liability of Appellant Company
The appellant contended that one unit was a separate manufacturing unit, not liable for excise duty. However, the Tribunal held that the liability as a manufacturer remained with the appellant company, despite having multiple units. The existence of trading units did not absolve the manufacturer from excise duty liability.

Issue 4: Exemption from Excise Duty
The appellant claimed exemption under notification No. 1/95-C.E., but the Tribunal found the notification inapplicable to the goods in question, namely garments. The notification did not specify the type of goods, leading to the rejection of the exemption claim.

Issue 5: Financial Condition
The appellant's financial condition was questioned, with an auditor's report showing a loss. However, the appellant was deemed a running concern with substantial fixed assets. The Tribunal considered the financial status but found it insufficient to warrant waiver of pre-deposit.

Issue 6: Waiver of Pre-Deposit
The Tribunal decided that the case did not merit a waiver of pre-deposit for the central excise duty and penalties. The appellant company and directors were directed to make specified deposits within set timelines, failing which their appeals would stand dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for waiver of pre-deposit, directing the appellant company and directors to make specified deposits to stay the impugned order. The issues of forged shipping bills, liability as a manufacturer, exemption from excise duty, financial condition, and pre-deposit were comprehensively addressed in the judgment.

---