TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of manufacturing, moulding and sale of various plastic articles. The petitioner, as part of its business activity, had manufactured air-coolers for and on behalf of one Symphony Limited. The Central Excise authorities, upon intelligence, carried out detailed investigation with respect to alleged large scale excise duty evasion by the petitioner herein and the said Symphony Limited. As a culmination of such exercise, a detailed show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner as well as to Symphony Limited. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara by his order dated 19-4-2011, confirmed duty demand of Rs. 51,71,338/- to be recovered with interest. He also imposed a matching penalty against the petitioner under Section 11AC of the Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. Section 35F of the Act pertains to deposit pending appeal of duty demand or penalty levied. It provides inter alia that whether in any appeal under Chapter 6A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, decision or order relating to any duty demanded in respect of goods, which are not under the control of Central Excise Authority or penalty is levied under the Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied. First proviso to Section 35F however, authorizes the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal to dispense with such deposit, subject to such conditions as deemed fit to safeguard the interest of the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Tribunal categorically found that these factors were established by the respondents. Even when the Tribunal decides to grant full or partial stay it has to impose such conditions as may be necessary to safeguard the interest of Revenue. This is an imperative requirement under Section 129E of the Act. ..." In case of Benara Valves Limited and others v. Commissioner of Central Excise and another, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 347 = 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.), the Supreme Court observed as under : "11. Two significant expressions used in the provisions are "undue hardship to such person" and "safeguard the interests of the Revenue". Therefore, while dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e. considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the application has to consider materials to be placed by the assessee relating to undue hardship and also to stipulate conditions as required to safeguard the interests of the Revenue." Such principles were reiterated in case of Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Industries Limited v. Union of India and others, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 487. 8. In the present case, neither of the two companies have either pleaded or proved any ground of financial hardship before the Tribunal. Even before us, no such case was made out or even argued by either of the two counsel. The short question therefore, calls for consideration is, did the Tribunal commit an error in insisting on a small portion of the duty/penalty to be deposited by way of pre-dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed earlier, at this stage it would not be possible to consider every aspect of the case. In the facts and circumstance of this case, it cannot be said that appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case for complete waiver. Nevertheless, as far as the job workers are concerned slightly lenient view, in our opinion, is called for. For coming to this conclusion, we have taken note of the fact that in this case Symphony used their clout and capacity to market the products and their reputation to ensure that the profits made by OEMs was always limited and had nothing to do with the demand for products in the market. While there is a cap for the profit and the earnings of job workers based on Symphony's market, there is no cap f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etan V. Parekh v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2012 (275) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Apex Court observed as under : "26. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, we have considered the submission of Shri Ranjit Kumar that the appellants are facing huge financial crises and the Appellate Tribunal committed serious error by not entertaining their prayer to dispense with the requirement of deposit of the amount of penalty in its entirety, but have not felt convinced. In our considered view, the appellants miserably failed to make out a case, which could justify an order by the Appellate Tribunal to relieve them of the statutory obligation to deposit the amount of penalty. The appellants have the exclusive knowledge o....