Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
The Wesman Engineering Company Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(150)ELT644(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
V.K. Agrawal
1. This is an application filed by M/s Wesman Engineering Company Limited for waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs. 2,53,052/- (rupees two lac fifty three thousand fifty two only) and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only). Shri Abhijit Saha, learned Consultant submitted that they are supplying industrial furnace to their customer in knocked-down condition on account of difficulty in transporting the entire furnace; that the Department is treating the removal of furnace in knocked-down condition as parts which attract rate of duty u/s.h. No. 8417.90; that the furnace as such attracts lesser rate of duty u/s.h. No. 8417.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vinar Systems Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-III - 2001 (131) ELT 372 (Tribunal - Kolkata). Finally he pleaded financial hardship by saying that in the year 1999 they had suffered loss of Rs. 1.16 crore.
2. Opposing the prayer Shri D.K. Bhowmik, learned DR, submitted that they are not clearing the furnace as they are not manufacturing in its entirety in their factory; that certain parts are bought out from market and sent directly to the site for erection and installation and as such the Department has rightly classified them as parts of furnace.
3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not disputed by the learned Consultant that certain parts are bought out from market and sent directly to the site for erection and installation. Thus it is apparent that furnace as such does not come into existence in the factory of the appellants. On query from the Bench, learned Consultant mentions that duty is paid by them only on furnace parts manufactured by them in their factory and not on the entire value of the furnace.
4. Thus they have not made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of the entire amount of duty. We also observe from the balance sheet as on 31.3.2000 that their ales have gone up in comparison of the financial year 1998-99 and they have earned profit in the year 2000. We, therefore, direct them to deposit Rs. 2.0 lac (rupees two lac only) towards duty within eight weeks from today. On complying with this direction there will be waiver of predeposit of remaining amount of duty and entire penalty and the recovery of the same will be stayed during pendency of the appeal. Matter to come up for reporting compliance on 23rd November, 2001.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)