ORDER
Archana Wadhwa
1. The prayer in the application is dispensing with pre-deposit of Duty of Rs. 1,35,508/- and penalty of Rs. 35,000/-. The said duty has been confirmed against the appellant by the authorities below on the ground that the pig iron, in respect of which Modvat Credit has been availed by them has been used in the manufacture of non-dutiable P.D.Pumps. As such by applying the Provisions of Rule 57 C Modvat Credit would not be available to the appellant. Shri R.G. Seth, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that out of pig iron they are manufacturing P.D. Pump as well as waste and scrap. While admitting that no duty is being paid on the P.D. Pumps, he submits that waste and scrap is being clearned by them on payment of duty. He, further, contends that waste and scrap is one of the declared final products in their declaration. Even Rule 57 F (12) permits them to utilize Modvat Credit for payment of scrap. In these circumstances submits the learned Advocate that denial of Modvat Credit on the ground that P.D. Pump is non-dutiable was not justifiable. He also places reliance in the case of Sunpra Energy and Recovery Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.E., Pune (1996 (88) ELT 551 (Tribunal) and in the case of Premier Irrigation Equipment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1988 (101) ELT 653 (T).
2. Countering the arguments Sh. J. Singh, learned JDR submits that admittedly P.D. Pumps are the final product of the appellant and the same were being cleared by them without payment of duty. In terms of Rule 57-C, Modvat Credit is not available to the appellants. Payment of duty on waste and scrap, which is arising during the course of manufacture of final product by itself will not neutralize the role and effect of Rule 57 C. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the issue involved is quite contentious and arguable from both the sides. The precedent decisions referred to by the learned Advocate are not covering the issue in its entirety. Suffice it to say that appellant has not been able to make up a prima facie case in their favour so as to allow the Stay Petition unconditionally. As such taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the appellants have not pleaded any financial hardship, I direct the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 4 Weeks from today. Subject to deposit of that amount the balance amount of duty and penalty shall be waived during the pendency of the appeal. Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 6th July, 2001. On ascertaining compliance with the above orders appeal itself will be heard on the same date.
(Pronounced & dictated in the open Court)