2008 (4) TMI 577 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of adjournment request and proceeding with stay petitions.
2. Confirmation of duty against the appellant for diversion of raw materials.
3. Reasons for seeking stay by the appellant.
4. Allegations against government officers and lack of evidence.
5. Direction to deposit a specific amount towards duty.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins with the rejection of the request for adjournment by the Advocate representing the appellant due to the absence of reasons provided for seeking adjournment. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the stay petitions after hearing the ld. DR, emphasizing the importance of presenting valid reasons for adjournment requests.

2. The Tribunal confirmed a demand of duty against the appellant for an amount of Rs. 1,26,66,649. The duty was confirmed based on findings that the appellant diverted duty-free procured raw materials meant for manufacturing 'Dupattas' in the local market. The Adjudicating Authority noted discrepancies in the appellant's infrastructure, production activities, and lack of evidence supporting the clearance of 'Dupattas' to another entity, leading to the conclusion that the appellant did not have a strong prima facie case for the stay petitions.

3. The appellant provided reasons for seeking a stay, citing the Department's alleged unreasonable demands, financial losses, and accusations of unjust penalties without evidence or legal basis. However, the Tribunal found these reasons to be unsubstantiated and lacking merit, indicating a desperate attempt to secure a stay without valid grounds or supporting evidence.

4. The judgment addressed the serious allegations made by the appellant against government officers without evidence, highlighting the lack of credibility in their claims. Despite alleging financial difficulties, the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to support their position. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount towards duty within a specified period, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims with evidence rather than baseless accusations.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,00,000 towards duty within 10 weeks, with the dispensation of the remaining duty amount and penalties imposed on the appellants. The matter was scheduled to return for compliance assessment on a specified date, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling financial obligations as per the Tribunal's directives.