LITELON PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Region, dated 12.2.1993. The order was passed on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The total duty demanded by the original authority was Rs. 5,76,764.07 and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The demand arose out of a mis-declaration of the said goods. The first item relates to polyethylene sheets, which the petitioner has described as falling under article [heading?] 3926.90 and the second item relates to polywool, which was declared as coming under the residuary article [hading?]. The Revenue sought to invoke the longer period of limitation in Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The contention was that in respect of polyethylene sheets, the longer period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. So far as polywool is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that it is entitled to the benefit of notification 132/86, as amended by notification 53/88.

(2.) The demand in respect of polywool was Rs. 2,48,242.31. The Tribunal found that the conditions mentioned in the said notifications were not fulfilled, disentitling the petitioner to get the benefit of the notification. Therefore, on a prima facie consideration the Tribunal accepted the reasoning of the Collector. So far as the other item of goods polyethylene sheets are concerned, the description in the price list, invoice and purchase orders were found to support the contention of the petitioner that there was no willful mis-description. Consequently the Revenue had no right to rely on the longer period of limitation. The duty in respect of polyethylene sheets was Rs. 3,28,521.76.

(3.) In view of the above findings of the Tribunal, the deposit in respect of the polyethylene sheets, viz., Rs. 3,28,521.76 was waived and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also waived, but the demand for waiver of Rs. 2,48,242.31 in respect of polywool was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that the financial hardship had not been taken into account, does not appeal to me. While setting out the facts the Tribunal did refer to the fact that the petitioner was making a profit of Rs. 3.35 lakhs for the period ending 31.3.1992. The total turnover was found to be Rs. 1.22 crores. Under such circumstances, the relief granted by the Tribunal seems to be adequate. After all, such orders are only discretionary and made on a prima facie consideration. I do not think that any case has been made out for interference with this order. Consequently this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.