Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Cheyyar Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Cce on 11 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(83)ECR551(TRI.-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. In MISC application no. 121/99, applicant seeks stay of the operation of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise passed in Order No. 20/96 dated 5.3.1996 in so far as it relates to confiscation of HT Back Pressure Turbo Generator Set. It is contended in the affidavit of Sri Sivam Arul, Administrator of the company that by the noted impugned order, they have been imposed with penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs has been imposed in lieu of confiscation of HT Back Pressure Turbo Generator Set. It is stated that the Tribunal heard their initial stay application as well as the prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit of penalty. The Tribunal by their Interim Order No. 166/96 dated 4.6.1996 granted waiver with regard to deposit of penalty imposed against them. However, as regards the prayer for stay of the operation of the order with regard to confiscation and imposition of redemption fine, the Tribunal observed as follows:
In regard to the redemption fine, we observe that once the taint of violation of C. Excise law gets attached to the goods, the same become liable to confiscation, irrespective of in whose hands, the goods at the time of seizure. In that view of the matter, we hold prima facie, there is no force in the learned advocate's plea in regard to the confiscability of the goods. We therefore, refrain from passing any order with regard to the prayer for stay of the operation of the order so far it relates to the confiscation of goods by the learned lower authority. We order accordingly.
It is now contended that the Revenue is taking steps to recover the fine from them.
2. Heard both sides in the matter.
3. Ld. Advocate submits that appellants company is a co-operative sugar mills and is undergoing losses and they are discharging duty liability of Rs. 3 crores per arnum. They contend that the production would come to a stand still if the goods are confiscated and hence seek for stay of the order.
4. Learned SDR points out that the Tribunal has already rejected their prayer as noted and therefore question of granting stay at this stage would not arise. He submits that it is for the appellants to exercise the option to redeem the goods by paying the fine and therefore there are no grounds for staying the operation in so far as the confiscation is concerned as the Tribunal has already expressed its view. He relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Gilloram Gouri Sankar v. CCE as wherein the Tribunal has expressed its opinion the stay is not grantable in respect of redemption fine and there is no justification in exercising inherent powers of the Tribunal in such matters.
5. Learned Advocate in counter submission relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Breweries as wherein the Tribunal has exercised its powers. The Tribunal in the cited case in special circumstances, as a special case has granted stay of recovery of redemption fine. Learned Advocate submits that this case also should be treated as a special case.
6. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the Tribunal has already rejected the prayer once and in this case we do not see any necessity to again pronounce the order or amend the order already passed. The opinion expressed by the Tribunal in the said order is required to be upheld again with-out any modification. We notice that there is no special extenuating circumstances to grant stay of recovery of the redemption fine. It is left to the appellants to exercise the option for redeeming the goods on paying the fine. The Tribunal has already expressed its view that prima facie goods are tainted and confiscation is justified. In that view of the matter, it cannot be stated at this stage that the goods are not confiscable and no redemption fine would be payable and also we cannot express the view that goods should be allowed to be redeemed without payment of fine. Admittedly, appellants are paying the Excise Duty of Rs. 3 crores every year and it cannot be said that appellants are faced with severe fi-nancial crisis and that they are not in a position to pay the redemption fine. In view of these circumstances, the prayer for stay of the operation is rejected.
7. Appellants' second prayer for early hearing cannot be considered as there is no application for early hearing in the main appeal filed by Belliss India Limited against whom the duty and penalty has been confirmed. Further, we notice that presently we are taking up the matter of 1988. There are large number of stay applications and half day of the Tribunal is confined to taking up the short matters. The remaining time itself is not sufficient to take up the old matters and specially directed matters from High Court and also matters where early hearing has been granted. In that view of the matter, the prayer for early hearing in the present case is not justified and hence the prayer is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court).