2000 (10) TMI 621 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Grants Waiver of Pre-Deposit for Customs and Excise Duties, Considers Jurisdictional Challenges

The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit for both Customs duty and Central Excise duty, considering jurisdictional challenges, time-barred demands, ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Confiscated goods Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Liability to pay duty on confiscated goods.3. Time-barred demand of Customs duty.4. Financial hardships of the applicant company.5. Pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts.6. Sick unit status of the company.7. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise:The applicants contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur had no jurisdiction to pass the order. They argued that the goods confiscated vested in the Government, relieving them of the duty liability until redemption. The applicants also raised concerns about the time-barred nature of the Customs duty demand and highlighted their status as a sick unit facing financial difficulties. The Commissioner's jurisdiction was challenged based on circulars issued by the Ministry, but the opposing party argued that the assessments were provisional and the original show cause notice was issued within the prescribed period. Ultimately, the Tribunal examined the submissions and granted a waiver of pre-deposit for the entire Customs duty amount.Liability to pay duty on confiscated goods:The Tribunal considered the issue of liability to pay duty on confiscated goods. Following a precedent, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of both Customs duty and Central Excise duty, as the goods were under the control of the Customs/Central Excise authorities. The Tribunal noted that the waiver was in line with previous decisions and granted relief to the applicants in this regard.Time-barred demand of Customs duty:The applicants raised concerns about the time-barred nature of the Customs duty demand, arguing that it was raised beyond the five-year period after the importation of goods. However, the opposing party contended that the demand was valid as it fell within the ten-year period prescribed for fulfilling export obligations by the EOU. The Tribunal considered these arguments but focused on the immediate issue of pre-deposit, deferring detailed consideration to the appeal hearing stage.Financial hardships of the applicant company:The applicant company, declared a sick unit by the BIFR, faced financial challenges with accumulated losses. The company's inability to make pre-deposits due to financial constraints was highlighted. The Tribunal acknowledged the company's sick unit status and financial position, leading to a decision not to require pre-deposit of penalty amounts at that stage, emphasizing the need for an early appeal resolution.Sick unit status of the company:The Tribunal examined the sick unit status of the company, noting the declaration by the BIFR and the lack of evidence regarding the unit's revival post-sanction. Despite arguments suggesting the company ceased to be a sick unit upon revival sanction, the Tribunal considered the company as a sick unit due to the substantial accumulated losses. This status influenced the decision not to mandate pre-deposit of penalty amounts considering the company's financial fragility.Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties:Taking into account the various arguments presented, including jurisdictional challenges, time-barred demands, and financial hardships, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit for both Customs duty and Central Excise duty. The decision was based on precedents and the specific circumstances of the applicant company being a declared sick unit with significant financial losses. The Tribunal allowed the application unconditionally and scheduled the appeal for regular hearing on a specified date.Conclusion:The Tribunal's detailed analysis and considerations led to the waiver of pre-deposit for the duty and penalty amounts, taking into account the jurisdictional issues, time-barred demands, and the financial hardships faced by the applicant company as a sick unit. The decision aimed to balance the interests of the Revenue with the challenging circumstances of the company, emphasizing the need for an expeditious appeal resolution.