Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Ispl Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 4 May, 2001
ORDER
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 3,68,487/- and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the relevant papers and heard the departmental representative.
2. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Dy. Commissioner, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that applicant cleared scrap manufactured by it without payment of duty thereon. The first contention in the stay application, that the Dy. Commissioner is not competent to adjudicate the show cause notice, is not supported by any material. While there is some reference to a circular of the Board stating that such cases should be adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, the circular has not been produced; nor is there any thing to show, assuming that it says what it is purported to say, why the Dy. Commissioner, who is of the same rank of Additional Commissioner could not adjudicate upon the notice.
3. Financial hardship is pleaded on the ground of losses. However while the balance sheet for 1997-98 which has been produced does show loss of Rs. 4.54 lakhs approximately, there was profit in the preceding financial year 1996-97 of about Rs. 57.52 lakhs. The position for the succeeding years is not known. I therefore think it appropriate to ask the applicant to deposit Rs. 1.80 lakhs within two months from today. Upon such deposit being made, I waive deposit of the remaining duty and penalty, and stay their recovery.
4. Compliance on 13th July, 2001.