BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the application is for dispensdation of pre -deposit of 23,65,479.34 which has been held to have been taken as Modvat Credit wrongly.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the appellants has pleaded that the learned lower authority has dismissed the appeals filed for the reason that the pre -deposit of 50% of the amount as above ordered by him was not made within the time stipulated by the learned lower authority. He has pleaded that the appellants had already taken a plea before the learned lower authority that the appellants had prima -facie a goods case on merits in respect of the items where Modvat Credit was denied for the reason that the tariff sub -heading given in the declaration was not correct. He has pleaded that while they had taken this plea they had not produced relevant document to support the same and would have done so in case an opportunity in this regard had been given. He has pleaded that this exercise has now been done and he has filed a set of papers before us to lay a basis for his plea. Since this is a fresh evidence which is now sought to be placed on record, the same cannot be taken note of at this interlocutory state. The learned Advocate in this context has mentioned that this factor should be borne in mind while fixing the amount of pre -deposit taking into consideration their pleas. He has pleaded the Modvat Credit had already been denied for the reason that certain items had not been declared by them or the relevant documents in respect of the inputs were not produced. He has pleaded the amount on that score will come about 20% of the demand. He has pleaded that the appellants would be willing to pre -deposit about 20% of the amount and has sought for remand of the matter subject to the pre -deposit of the said amount for consideration of the issue on merits. The remand, he has pleaded, may be made to the original authority as the exercise of correlation of the documents as also the examination regarding the nature of the goods is required to be done. He has pleaded that the pre -deposit of 50% as ordered by the learned lower authority could not be made as the appellants were suffering from liquidity crunch and were also struggling to meet their commitments. He has pleaded that the appellant's organisation is a frontline organisation in the electronics field and has to engage itself for various national needs in a lot of R and D work apart from the commercial activity which is carried on by them. He has therefore pleaded that taking into consideration the overall commitment of the appellants in the national efforts for becoming self -sufficient in the field of electronics both for defence and also for the core areas of the industry namely the telecommunication industry, the amount of 50% asked to be deposited was high in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) THE learned JDR has pleaded that the appellants had not come on record with evidence to substantiate their case that they had taken the Modvat Credit correctly. No documents had been produced for this. The appellants themselves admitted that certain items are not declared. He has also referred us to the observations of Collector regarding pre -taxed profits earned by them. At this stage the learned Advocate has also referred us to the Balance Sheet for the year 1995 -96 and has pointed out that the appellants had made a net profit of Rs. 20.7 crores on sales turnover of Rs. 1060 crores. He has pleaded taking into consideration the nature of operations of the appellants the profit shown can be taken to be only marginal. He has also pleaded that a lot of their funds are tied up with the Government Departments and the appellants are always in a crunch situation in the case of management of funds.