Page 251 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] A.K. SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV 689

of the LED panel lights and the lights cannot be used without the corresponding
driver. Thus, I do find merit in the clarification given by the manufacturers stat-
ing that it was an error while embossing I.S. No. on the drivers. For this reason, I
hold that the confiscation of the driver alone cannot sustain. The order passed by
the authority below is therefore set aside. There is no requirement to state specif-
ically that the appellant has to pay duty when these goods are cleared for home
consumption. Since I find that the misdescription of the BIS number is an error
committed by the manufacturer, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh]
is set aside. Impugned order modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed on the
above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 689 (Tri. - Chan.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
A.K. SINGH
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV
Misc. Order Nos. 60330-60333/2018, dated 27-8-2018 in Application Nos.
E/COD/60397, 60399/2018 & E/ROA/60396, 60398/2018 in Appeal Nos. E/2714,
2715/2011
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal by Directors of company - Restoration
thereof when same dismissed for failure to make pre-deposit by company
though full waiver granted in their appeals subject to condition that the said
company would make pre-deposit - There being no order for making pre-
deposit in their appeals, they should not suffer on account of non-compliance
of pre-deposit order by the company - Their stay applications having not been
decided on merits, same to be heard afresh after restoration of their appeals -
Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 5]
Applications allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Seema Arora, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The applicants have filed the
applications for condonation of delay as well as restoration of appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicants filed the appeals before
this Tribunal along with the appeal of the main company M/s. Pelican Tobacco
Co. Ltd. While entertaining the stay applications filed by the applicants, this Tri-
bunal considered that if M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. makes a deposit of 50% of
duty within eight weeks, waiver of pre-deposit shall be granted to the applicants.
The said order of this Tribunal was challenged by M/s. Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd.
before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court who directed the main com-
pany to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 6.00 crore. The said order was also challenged

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  251