Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - MumbaiWadco Packaging P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 August, 1999Equivalent citations: 2000(117)ELT660(TRI-MUMBAI)ORDER
 

J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)1. This is an application for early hearing. The issue is the dutiability of top covers, bottom covers, partitions, sleeves, corrugated sheets supplied along with corrugated boxes manufactured by the applicants. In the impugned order duty amounting to Rs. 40,73,725/- was confirmed and penalty of equal amount imposed underSection 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In their order on the stay petition, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 25.00 lacs as pre-condition to hearing of the appeal. The appellants have complied with the direction and are seeking early hearing.2. Shri R. Nambirajan the ld. Counsel submits that their buyers Godrej offer them a fixed price for the packaging. On their having to pay differential duty on such equipments they are placed in an adverse situation when compared with the other suppliers or similar goods who are not paying duty on such fitments. It is also his claim that because of the extra margin of duty, they have to pay higher quantum of sales tax and octroi duty. It is his submission that the issue is of recurring nature. Hence the request.3. Ordinarily an issue being of recurring nature which would put an assessee in a adverse situation would be considered as a ground for early hearing. The assessee has also to show that he has no other avenue left. In this case however the assessees has a contractual problem with the buyers. We do not see this ground is a ground fit for consideration of the request. If the impugned order is a reflection of the thought of the department, then the other suppliers should also be made to pay duty on the same goods supplied by them. In that case the appellants would be placed in the same [position] as other suppliers. This is a job for the applicants to take up with the Excise authorities. We do no see any valid ground to accede to their request. Accordingly dismissed.4. As regards the request from Shri Phadnis, the order on stay application leaves no burden on him. His application is also dismissed.