Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Abhinav Enterprises vs C.C.E., Jaipur on 24 April, 2001
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This Stay Application of the appellants arises out of their Appeal No. E/629/2001/NB(D) filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 14.11.2000 dismissing their appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance of the Stay Order dt. 21.3.2000, vide which they were required to make pre-deposit of the entire duty amount of Rs. 14,39,761/- and an equal amount of penalty.
2. The appellants have filed the present stay application and pleaded for waiver of duty and penalty amounts. Shri A.L. Mathur, Counsel for the appellants has contended that no duty liability could be fastened on the appellants, as they were only the job workers. He has also pleaded financial hardship of the appellants for making pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts.
3. On the other hand, Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR has argued that the appeal of the appellants had been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order only under Section 35-F, as they did not comply with his Order dt. 21.3.2000, but not on merits. Regarding the financial hardship of the appellants, ld. JDR has submitted that no proof to that effect has been furnished by them and as such the same cannot be taken note of.
4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
5. The question as to whether the appellants could be saddled with the duty liability and penalty or not on the ground that they worked only as job workers, as pleaded by them, cannot be gone into at this stage. This question has not been even determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order. The appeal of the appellants had been dismissed only under Section 35-F of the Act, as they failed to comply with the Stay Order dt. 21.3.2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals). That Stay Order had already attained the finality, as they never challenged before any higher forum. Therefore, prima facie, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be said to be illegal, ill-founded or defective in any manner.
6. Regarding financial hardship of the appellants, it would be suffice to say that for want of any material to that effect on the record, the same cannot be taken note of. No documentary proof what-so-ever has been furnished by them to show that they are in financial crisis.
7. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue involved, the interest of justice would be met, if the appellants are directed to make pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs (Rs. three lakhs) towards duty amount within a period of six weeks from today. Therefore, we order the appellants accordingly to make the pre-deposit of this amount (Rs. 3 lakhs) within the stipulated time of six weeks from today and on deposit of the same, balance of duty and entire penalty amounts shall stand waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. However, if the appellants failed to comply with the terms of this order, their appeal shall become liable to be dismissed under Section 35-F of the Act.
8. To come up for reporting compliance on 22nd June, 2001.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)