ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Advocate arguing the Stay Petition, submits that the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad has confirmed a demand of Rs. 14.79 Crore as duty and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 3.50 Crore. He submits that the Applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Diesel Locomotives and parts thereof, including Engine Parts used in engines. He submits that the Locomotives and spare parts are supplied to the Indian Railways; that they are also sold to Public Sector Undertakings. He submits that the present demand covers all Engine Blocks and other parts used in Engines cleared to the Railways. He submits that the dispute was about the Classification of parts of Engines. The ld. Counsel submits that according to them, these parts will fall under Chapter sub-heading 86.07 whereas the Department was holding that these parts are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.09. The ld. Counsel argued that it is axiomatic that a part of a part is a part of the whole and since the issue is confined to the Classification of Engine Parts and Engine is a part of a Locomotive, therefore, engine parts are also parts of Locomotive. The ld. Counsel submitted that goods, falling under Chapter 86 when manufactured by Central Government for use by a Department of the Central Government, are wholly exempt from duty under Notification No. 197/87, dated 28-8-1987. He submitted that if the parts are classifiable under Chapter Heading 86.07, they would be wholly exempt from duty under the above notification. He submitted that the entire dispute is restricted to determining whether they fall under Chapter Heading 84.09 as held by the Department or under Chapter Heading 86.07 as claimed by the Applicant.
2. The ld. Counsel submitted that the applicants are a Government Department. There may not be any intention to evade payment of duty. He submitted that the entire demand is beyond six months and to enforce the demand, a longer period beyond 6 months has been invoked which is not warranted in the circumstances of their case. He submitted that the Department was well aware that the applicants were manufacturing Engines and parts thereof; that there was nothing hidden from the Department and thus, the entire demand is hit by limitation. He, therefore, submitted that pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived.
3. Opposing the request for dispensation with pre-deposit of duty and penalty, Shri P.K. Jain, the ld. SDR, submitted that the Applicant had not submitted classification list indicating parts of Engine manufactured by them. He submits that the Applicants knew full well that they were manufacturing Engines and were paying duty on Engines. He submitted that, therefore, the natural corollary would have been that they should have paid duty on parts of Engines also which they did not do. He submitted that since the applicant did not file Classification lists, etc. in respect of Engine parts, therefore, there was mis-statement and suppression of facts. He submitted that insofar as merits of the case are concerned, even on merits, the case is in favour of the Department. He, therefore, prayed that the Applicant may be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty.
4. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we note that for determining whether there was mis-statement and suppression of facts, the records will have to be gone into in detail which is not possible at this stage. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made before us in its totality, we direct the Applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.00 Crore (Rupees Two Crore) on or before 31st January, 1998. Failure to deposit the above amount shall lead to dismissal of the appeal without any further notice. On compliance of this order, Deposit/Recovery of the balance amount of duty and penalty shall remain stayed during the pendency of the Appeal.
5. To come up for reporting compliance on 9th February, 1998.