1992 (3) TMI 317 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants relief in Misc. Application, stays penalty recovery, extends duty payment time. Upholds initial duty deposit order.

BG. Chitale Versus Collector Of Central Excise

The Tribunal partially allowed the Misc. Application by staying the penalty recovery proceedings and extending the time for duty payment, while upholding ... Recovery proceedings - Held that:- As during the pendency of the appeal, Revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings in respect of penalty amount. The Bench had ordered to deposit the full duty amount of Rs. 3,06,925/- on or before the 1st March, 1992. In the interest of justice, the time for payment of duty amount extended till the 30th June, 1992. Issues:1. Modification of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal regarding stay application.2. Consideration of granting stay and waiver of pre-deposit of duty.3. Validity of applicant's claim for SSI benefits under Notification No. 175/86-CE.4. Allegations of fraud and suppression of facts by the applicant.5. Exercise of inherent power by the Tribunal regarding stay of penalty recovery proceedings.Analysis:Issue 1: Modification of the earlier order passed by the TribunalThe applicants sought modification of the earlier stay order passed by the Tribunal, arguing that the stay was not explicitly granted during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant contended that the Tribunal only dispensed with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, not addressing the stay issue. The Tribunal had considered the COB license granted to the applicant and the status of their unit as an SSI unit. The applicants claimed irreparable loss if the order was not modified.Issue 2: Consideration of granting stay and waiver of pre-deposit of dutyThe respondent argued that there was no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, as all aspects were considered before disposing of the stay application. The respondent contended that the applicant did not raise the issue of the absence of a COB license during the initial hearing. The Tribunal had examined the material on record and found no grounds to modify the order.Issue 3: Validity of applicant's claim for SSI benefits under Notification No. 175/86-CEThe Tribunal reviewed the applicant's claim for SSI benefits under Notification No. 175/86-CE. The Adjudicating authority noted that the applicant had crossed the investment limits in 1984 but continued to claim SSI benefits. The Tribunal considered the applicant's failure to inform the authorities about the change in their unit's status and the implications of misrepresenting their SSI eligibility.Issue 4: Allegations of fraud and suppression of facts by the applicantThe Adjudicating authority highlighted the applicant's failure to disclose the change in their unit's status and their misrepresentation to claim SSI benefits. The authority emphasized that granting SSI benefits in such circumstances would undermine the government's support for small-scale industries. The applicant denied suppressing facts but failed to address the discrepancies in their SSI claim.Issue 5: Exercise of inherent power by the Tribunal regarding stay of penalty recovery proceedingsThe Tribunal invoked its inherent power to stay the penalty recovery proceedings during the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision on the Tribunal's authority to regulate its procedure. The Tribunal extended the time for the payment of duty amount in the interest of justice but maintained the order for payment as previously directed by the Bench.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Misc. Application by staying the penalty recovery proceedings and extending the time for duty payment, while upholding the initial order regarding the duty amount deposit. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, legal provisions, and the parties' arguments presented during the proceedings.