ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Ld. Advocate Shri Rajesh Chibber prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 17,87,721 /-demanded as compound levy during the period January, 1998 to December, 1998. He submits that this is patently wrong demand inasmuch as the appellant had been paying the determined duty liability on the basis of annual capacity which in turn was again determined on the basis of changed parameters verified by the Revenue officers. The demand had been made merely on the ground that the parameters changed by the applicants were only cosmetic in nature and did not make any real or effective change. He submits that this ground is simply unsustainable in view of the formula provided by law and that formula therefore, has to be respected by the authorities concerned.
2. On the basis of that formula the capacity was determined and their duty liability was determined and they have been paying the said duty. However, the authorities have applied formula as if there has been no change in the parameters made by them and duly verified by the Revenue officer. He, therefore, submits that the demand is illegal and untenable and, therefore, he has a strong prima facie case. Consequently, he prays for allowing the stay petition unconditionally. Apart from that he has drawn our attention to financial hardship by placing on record the balance sheet for the period ending 31st March, 1998 and the profit and loss account for the said period which indicates that they have made nominal profit of Rs. 17,185/- during the aforesaid period.
3. Opposing the contention, ld. JDR Shri Sanjeev Srivastava reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that while the distance between centres of the pinion has been reduced and has been duly verified by the Revenue officers, the applicants have introduced wobblers between pinion and rollers thereby effectively increasing the central distance between the finishing rollers which should have the same distance as between pinion in normal course. But here the central distance between pinions has been decreased by use of wobblers. He, therefore, submits that the demand of duty has been rightly calculated by the adjudicating authority by taking the distance between the centres of the finishing rollers which in effect means the distance between centres to pinions.
3. On the financial hardship, ld. JDR submits that it is a profit taking concern and, therefore, they have the capacity of pay the aforesaid amount. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We find sufficient force so far as the legal plea taken by the Advocate is concerned. The plea taken is law provides for determination of capacity on the basis of the formula and that formula is not disputed by the Revenue authorities inasmuch as the centre distance between the pinions is decreased to 205 mm. It is a different matter that the applicants have used wobblers thereby effectively increasing the distance between centres of finishing rollers. We are prima fade of the view that the law as laid down has to be applied. If any change in law is required it is not the concern of the Courts. The legal provisions cannot be changed by the adjudicating authority. When law provides that the distance-between pinions has to be taken, only that distance has to be taken and not the distance between finishing rollers. Hence we find the appellants have a strong prima facie case and consequently we allow the stay petition unconditionally.