1997 (9) TMI 322 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal orders appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs within two months, waives remaining sum, and stays recovery.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs within two months, with the remaining sum demanded waived and recovery stayed, considering the ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Glassware Issues:Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on classification of goods as laboratory glassware, financial status of the appellant, distinguishing facts from previous cases, and the Tribunal's decision on payment and stay of recovery.Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of GoodsThe appellant argued that they manufactured laboratory glassware for chemical processing industries, citing Supreme Court judgments and definitions of 'laboratory' from dictionaries. They contended that their products were used for testing, research, and development purposes, falling under Tariff Entry 7012.90 with Nil duty. The Commissioner, however, held that the goods were not parts of chemical plants for industrial use. The appellant claimed to have cleared the plant in knockdown condition and assembled it at the site, emphasizing the distinction between laboratory glassware and industrial glass equipment.Issue 2: Financial Status of the AppellantThe Departmental Representative highlighted the appellant's catalog stating their engagement in manufacturing industrial process glass equipment for big units, contradicting the appellant's claim of producing only laboratory glassware. The financial status of the appellant was scrutinized, showing gross profits and deductions made from the income received. The Tribunal considered these aspects, including the appellant's income sources and expenses, in determining the financial capacity to pay the duty and penalty.Issue 3: Distinguishing Facts from Previous CasesThe Tribunal differentiated the facts of the present case from previous judgments cited by both parties. It noted the size and nature of the product in comparison to cases like Mittal Engineers Co. and Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that the orders made in stay petitions are not precedents and assessed the declarations filed in this case. It found the facts of the present case distinct from Order No. 3160, dated 26-6-1997, and the Mittal Engineers Co. case, leading to a prima facie disagreement with the appellant's contentions.Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision on Payment and Stay of RecoveryConsidering the totality of circumstances and the appellant's financial hardship, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs within two months, with the option of installment payments if necessary. Upon payment of this amount, the remaining sum demanded would be waived, and the recovery thereof stayed. The Tribunal aimed to balance the interests of the appellant and the revenue authorities, ensuring compliance by the specified date for further proceedings.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the classification of goods, the appellant's financial status, the distinction from previous cases, and the Tribunal's decision on payment and stay of recovery, providing a comprehensive analysis of the arguments presented and the ultimate resolution of the matter.