1992 (7) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal modifies stay order, remands matter for fresh examination. Appellants granted relief.

The Tribunal modified the stay order and remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh examination within three months. The appellants were ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Calculation of demand and benefit of Notification No. 71/71-C.E.2. Lack of quantification details provided to the appellants.3. Appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and Tribunal's stay order.4. Grounds of appeal challenging the calculation of demand.5. Request for modification of the stay order and remand of the matter.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Techno Pack Limited, challenging the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the demand calculation related to LDPE tubes and films. The appellants sought the benefit of proviso (2) to Notification No. 71/71-C.E., dated 29-5-1971, which was denied. The appellants contended that lack of quantification details hindered their ability to dispute the demand amount, leading to a request for modification of the stay order.2. The Assistant Collector's Order-in-Original confirmed the demand without providing detailed calculations to the appellants. The appellants raised specific grounds of appeal regarding the lack of quantification details and the basis of calculation. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the demand but noted that the appellants did not dispute the quantification. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not challenged the calculation basis in their grounds of appeal, highlighting the need for specific pleas regarding the benefit of Notification No. 71/71-C.E.3. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, observed that the appellants had not sufficiently raised the issue of the benefit of the notification in their appeal. However, citing legal precedents allowing new claims based on existing evidence, the Tribunal decided to modify the earlier stay order. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh examination, emphasizing the need for principles of natural justice and timely resolution within three months.4. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants should not be required to deposit the duty amount immediately, considering the potential undue hardship. The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application and granted the appeal by way of remand, directing the Collector (Appeals) to conduct a fresh examination within a specified timeframe, ensuring a fair hearing and adherence to legal principles.