GOEL SCIENTIFIC WORKS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate case where the Tribunal imposed a very harsh and onerous condition on the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore for hearing the appeal filed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal ).

(2.) AT the relevant time, Appeal No. 913 of 1997 was filed before the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai. The petitioner was challenging the order dated 14. 02. 1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda raising demand of duty of Rs. 2,85,22,727/- for the period from 1991-92 to 1995-96 and also imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lacs. When the petitioner's stay application came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 20. 06. 1997, the Tribunal observed that on merits, the classification of the product is arguable and having regard to the financial position of the petitioner company, as reflected in their provisional balance sheet as on 31. 03. 1997, indicating the sales revenue of over Rs. 2 crores, the Tribunal directed that for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits, the petitioner shall pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1 crore on or before 31. 07. 1997. The matter was ordered to be posted for reporting compliance on 08. 08. 1997. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner was not in a position to comply with the said condition and that the petitioner had even gone to State Bank of India for borrowing a sum of Rs. 1 crore. The Bank, however, rejected that application. The petitioner thereafter made another application before the Tribunal for recalling/modifying the order dated 20. 06. 1997 pointing out that the petitioner was unable to make the pre-deposit due to financial hardship. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said application on 06. 11. 1997. Ultimately, when the matter came up before the Tribunal on 18. 11. 1997, on the ground that the petitioner appellant had failed to comply with the condition stipulated in the pre-deposit order dated 20. 06. 1997, dismissed the appeal only on the ground of non-compliance of the stay order.

(3.) THE dispute between the petitioner and the Central Excise authorities was whether the products being manufactured by the petitioner fell under Heading 7012. 10 of Central Excise Tariff as contended by the petitioner or under Residuary Heading 7015 as contended by the department. Similar orders were passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise against six other units including M/s. Pioneer Scientific Glass Works. In their case also, the Tribunal had passed stay orders, requiring those appellants to pre-deposit certain amounts. The amounts being smaller in their case, those parties could deposit the amounts in compliance with the condition stipulated in the stay orders passed by the Tribunal and those six appeals came to be allowed by the Tribunal as per its judgment dated 25. 9. 2000. The Tribunal held that the appellants therein were manufacturing laboratory glassware and that they were covered by Heading 7012. 10 and not under Heading 7015. The department carried the matter before the Apex Court and those appeals have, by now, been decided by the judgment dated 19. 04. 2006 reported as Commissioner of C. Ex. , Vadodara Vs. Pioneer Scientific Glass Works, 2006 (197) E. L. T. 308 (S. C. ). The Apex Court dismissed the appeals filed by the department and confirmed the findings of the Tribunal that the products manufactured by the respondents before the Apex Court were laboratory glassware falling under Heading 7012. 10.