Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Steel Tubes Of India Ltd. vs Cce on 20 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(91)ECC151, 2002(148)ELT955(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. These are three stay applications, one by the Company and the other two by two employees of the company. In the captioned appeals, the company is aggrieved by a demand of duty of over Rs. 6.4 lakhs confirmed against them by the lower authorities while the employees are against penalties imposed on them by the authorities under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the present applications, the applicants have prayed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the duty and penalty amounts.
2. The counsel for the applicants submits that the company is already registered with the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the SIC (SP) Act, 1985. He produces a copy of the BIFR letter dated 31.7.2002 in proof of this fact, which is not contested. Ld. Counsel submits that this Tribunal has been granting full waiver of pre-deposit in favour of such companies registered with BIFR. One of the instances cited by him is the order passed by a Two-Member Bench of this Tribunal in Pressure Tech-Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 2002 (140) ELT 398. As regards the stay applications of the employees, Ld. Counsel submits that the impugned order has not disclosed any valid ground for imposing penalties on them under Rule 209A ibid.
3. Ld. DR opposes these applications on the strength of the findings contained in the impugned order. It is his further submission that the company has not yet been declared sick and that mere registration of their case with the BIFR may not be sufficient reason for accepting their plea of financial hardships.
4. I have examined the submissions and perused the case law and the BIFR letter cited by the counsel.
5. The applicants have established a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts, on the ground of financial hardships. The impugned order prima facie does not state sustainable grounds for the penalties imposed on the employees of the company under Rule 209A ibid.
6. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery are accordingly granted. Having regard to the interests of the Revenue, the appeals will be heard as early as possible. Accordingly, the appeals are posted to 3.12.2003.