1998 (5) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds waiver & stay for manufacturing; penalties imposed for contravention

The Tribunal confirmed the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of duty recovery for bars, rods, and angles manufacturing, despite denying benefits under ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty confirmed.2. Denial of Notification No. 202/88 benefits and penalties imposed.3. Burden of proving non-duty paid inputs.4. Time bar for issuing show cause notice.5. Financial hardship plea for waiver of pre-deposit.Analysis:1. The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of duty recovery on bars, rods, and angles manufacturing. The dispute involved the denial of benefits under Notification No. 202/88 and penalties imposed for contravention of Central Excise Rules. The duty amounts and penalties were specified for each appeal.2. Counsel for the applicants argued that the department failed to prove the inputs were non-duty paid, as suppliers' statements were not cross-examined. They contended the show cause notice was time-barred and disclosed all details in purchase registers, negating suppression charges. Financial hardship was cited based on a loss in the balance sheet.3. The department contended that inputs supplied did not match those specified in the notification, and suppliers' statements indicated non-duty paid scrap materials. They alleged misdeclaration and suppression, justifying the extended period for investigation.4. The Tribunal found that the department established a prima facie case against the applicants regarding the non-availability of Notification benefits. It noted that the inputs were scrap, not as specified, and had not discharged duty liability. The time bar issue favored the department due to discrepancies in declared versus actual inputs.5. Regarding cross-examination, the Tribunal found no legal infirmity and rejected the plea based on the financial positions of the applicants. Specific amounts were directed to be deposited within a stipulated timeframe to waive the remaining duty and penalty, with recovery stayed pending appeals. Non-compliance would lead to vacation of stay and dismissal of appeals.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, findings, and directives related to the waiver of pre-deposit, denial of benefits under Notification No. 202/88, burden of proving non-duty paid inputs, time bar considerations, and financial hardship pleas presented before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.