2014 (4) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal orders 50% duty deposit within 8 weeks, balancing financial capacity with compliance

Drytech Processors (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Bhopal

The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty within eight weeks and report compliance by a specified date, considering the financial ... Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 3/2007 - Held that:- precedent interim order should normally be followed but we also take note of the plea of the ld. Advocate that the amounts involved in the earlier stay order were much on the lower side and was within their financial capacity. Accordingly they could deposit the same in toto. As the amount involved in the present appeal is on the higher side, and as the issue is of recurring nature and keeping in view the appellants plea that there are many cases in the pipeline and requirement of pre-deposit of duty in each and every case would admittedly lead to financial hardship - Conditional stay granted. Issues: Application to dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Notification No. 3/2007 for product 'Frescubin'.Analysis:1. The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.83,64,729/- and penalty of Rs.20,91,182/-, which were confirmed due to denial of exemption under Notification No. 3/2007 for their product 'Frescubin,' claimed to be a food supplement. The Tribunal had previously directed the appellant to deposit entire duty amounts in similar cases, citing lack of prima facie case in their favor.2. The appellant's advocate acknowledged compliance with previous stay orders where lower duty amounts were involved, but highlighted the financial burden posed by the current higher amount and the recurring nature of the issue with multiple pending Show Cause Notices. The advocate requested early disposal of the matter due to financial constraints and the ongoing nature of the issue.3. The Revenue's representative advocated following the precedent of directing the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount, as per previous stay orders. However, the Tribunal considered the financial capacity of the appellant, noting that the previous amounts were manageable for them, unlike the current higher sum. Acknowledging the financial hardship posed by the recurring issue and multiple pending cases, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty within eight weeks and report compliance by a specified date. The final disposal of the present appeal and related appeals was contingent upon the appellant's compliance with the directive.This judgment reflects a balanced approach by considering the financial capacity of the appellant, the recurring nature of the issue, and the need to prevent financial hardship while ensuring compliance with the duty requirements.