M/S. Advance Enterprises Vs. Cce, Meerut - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....50% of the duty demand. thereafter, the applicants filed application for modification of the stay order on the ground of financial hardship as their factory was closed since 1996. applicants had not received any order by the commissioner (appeals) on the modification application. on merit, he submits that the credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the invoice was not pre-authenticated and there are some discrepencies in the invoice. he pleaded financial hardship as the factory of the applicants is lying closed from 1996.3. learned sdr appearing on behalf of revenue submits that the modification application filed by the applicant was dismissed by the commissioner and the order was communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 13.10.99. he submits that thereafter a notice was issued to the applicants for deposit an amount as per the stay order.5. in this case in the impugned order the commissioner (appeals) after rejecting the modification application granted time to comply with the stay order.6. the contention of the applicants is that the credit was denied to the applicants on procedural laps. they also pleaded financial hardship. taking into facts and.....

Judgment:

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.5,87,995.00 in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that against the adjudication order an appeal alongwith application for waiver of duty amount was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit 50% of the duty demand. Thereafter, the applicants filed application for modification of the Stay order on the ground of financial hardship as their factory was closed since 1996. Applicants had not received any order by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the modification application. On merit, he submits that the credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the invoice was not pre-authenticated and there are some discrepencies in the invoice. He pleaded financial hardship as the factory of the applicants is lying closed from 1996.

3. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of Revenue submits that the modification application filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Commissioner and the order was communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 13.10.99. He submits that thereafter a notice was issued to the applicants for deposit an amount as per the Stay order.

5. In this case in the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) after rejecting the modification application granted time to comply with the Stay order.

6. The contention of the applicants is that the credit was denied to the applicants on procedural laps. They also pleaded financial hardship. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, I find, it is not a fit case for total waiver of duty. However, taking into financial hardship into consideration, the applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) within a period of 8 weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, the deposit of remaining amount of duty is stayed. To come up for reporting compliance on 14.3.2001.