2006 (3) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Dismissal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with Section 35F.
3. Contention regarding supply of goods through dealers and payments received from Government organizations.
4. Lack of evidence of financial flow back from dealers to manufacturing unit.
5. Statement of Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal regarding direct payments to manufacturing unit.
6. Consideration of evidence and decision on duty waiver.
7. Remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed stay applications seeking waiver of duty and penalty pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as the appellants failed to meet the conditions of the stay order.

2. The appellants argued that they supplied goods through dealers, who further supplied to Government organizations. The demand was based on goods supplied to Government organizations through specific dealers, with the appellants receiving consideration directly. They contended that they paid duty based on the price at which goods were cleared to dealers.

3. The Revenue contended that payments were directly received by the manufacturing unit from Government organizations, as confirmed by Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal's statement. He mentioned that orders were placed on the manufacturing unit, leading to direct payments, despite goods being supplied through him.

4. The appellants maintained that they supplied goods to various dealers at the same price, disputing Revenue's claim of value suppression. They argued that there was no financial flow back from dealers to the manufacturing unit, supporting their position.

5. The Tribunal considered the evidence, noting that orders were placed at the manufacturing unit by Government organizations, with direct payments received at the cleared price. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the demanded duty within eight weeks, with the balance waived upon this deposit.

6. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide on merits due to non-compliance, the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to decide the appeals afresh on merits after the appellants make the specified pre-deposit.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, including the contentions of both parties and the Tribunal's decision on duty waiver and remand for fresh consideration.