ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 15 lakhs and penalty of the equal amount.
2. The contention of the applicant is that M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and a demand of duty Rs. 15 lakhs and penalty of the equal amount were confirmed against M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. Subsequently, M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. was acquired by the U.P. Financial Corporation. Thereafter, the U.P. Financial Corpn. sold the unit owned by M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. to the applicant vide Sale Deed dated 22-5-2003. It was specifically mentioned by the U.P. Financial Corporation that the unit is free from all charges or encumbrances. The contention of the applicant is that no doubt, prior to 2003 there was a provision under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules which provides for recovery of such amount from the purchaser of unit. When this unit was purchased by the applicant on 22-5-2003 no provision was in existence in the Central Excise Act or Rules. The contention is also that subsequently in 2004, the similar provision was introduced under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Macson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI – after relying upon the provisions of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules held that the units which were acquired by the Financial Corporation and subsequently sold are liable to nay the central excise duty.
4. We find that this unit in question was purchased by the applicant on 22-5-2003 and at that time, no provisions parallel to Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules were in the Central Excise Act or Rules. Prima facie, the applicants have a strong case in their favour and therefore the whole of the duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The stay petition is allowed. The registry is directed to list the appeal in the week starting from 3rd April 2006.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)