2006 (4) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Stay applications regarding duty demand of over Rs. 24 lakhs and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 5 lakhs, and the remaining duty demand of about Rs. 12 lakhs pertained to exported goods. The appellant argued that the revenue had erred in treating the invoices issued to the merchant exporter as different supplies. However, a perusal of the record revealed that the export invoices contained the name of the merchant exporter, indicating a correlation. The explanation provided by the appellant seemed to have prima facie merit, suggesting a potential error on the revenue's part.

2. Regarding the remaining amount of demand, it was claimed that computer-generated duplicate invoices had caused confusion. The appellant contended that despite the error, both sets of invoices matched in all particulars, and there was no evidence of double supplies to the buyers who were manufacturers. The appellant's counsel argued that the explanation concerning the computer error should be accepted. This explanation also appeared to have prima facie merit, indicating a need to consider the possibility of an error in the computer-generated invoices.

3. Considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found merit in the explanations provided by the appellant. As the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs was already made, it was deemed sufficient for the purpose of hearing the appeals. The requirement for additional deposits was waived, and recovery of the remaining amount was stayed until the disposal of the appeals. This decision was made to ensure fairness and allow for a thorough examination of the issues raised by the appellant before any further recovery actions were taken.