Prima facie inapplicability of penalty rule and limitation objections justified waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery.

Rule 173Q was found, on a prima facie basis, to be inapplicable where the applicants were described as raw material suppliers and the job worker as the manufacturer; on that footing, the alleged gate pass irregularity did not clearly attract the penalty provision, so waiver of predeposit and stay of penalty recovery were justified. The applicants also showed a prima facie case that the duty demand was vulnerable on exemption and limitation, relying on exemption notifications, annual declarations available to the department, and a prior treatment of identical goods of a sister concern as non-excisable; accordingly, waiver of predeposit and stay of duty and penalty recovery were granted pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules; (ii) Whether the applicants made out a prima facie case on limitation and exemption so as to justify waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the footing that the applicants were not the manufacturers but only suppliers of raw materials, while the job worker was treated as the manufacturer. On that basis, the allegation against the applicants was confined to issuance of gate passes for goods manufactured by the job worker so that the buyer could avail higher notional credit. Rule 173Q, on its terms, applies to a manufacturer, producer or licensee of a warehouse and is attracted for specified contraventions by such person. On the material placed, the applicants showed a strong prima facie case that the rule was not attracted to their position as described in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of the penalty.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants made out a prima facie case on limitation and exemption so as to justify waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The applicants relied on the exemption notifications applicable to articles of plastic and on prior departmental dealings, including annual declarations filed from the inception of manufacture. The declarations contained the description of the goods and were available to the jurisdictional officers, and a prior order had treated identical goods of a sister concern as non-excisable. In that background, the applicants showed a prima facie case that the demand was vulnerable both on exemption and on limitation, including the absence of a clear basis for alleging suppression or misdeclaration so as to invoke the extended period.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of the duty and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The stay applications were allowed, and recovery of the impugned duty and penalty was stayed during the pendency of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellants establish a strong prima facie case that the charging provision is inapplicable or that the demand is vulnerable on limitation and exemption, predeposit may be waived and recovery stayed pending appeal.

---