9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 562 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Contesting order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad regarding demand of Customs duty, Central Excise duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods; Calculation of liability without basis; Failure to consider fulfillment of conditions for exemption; Non-cooperative attitude of the appellant; Pre-deposit requirement; Pending matter before Development Commissioner; Stay on penalty and interest.
Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad confirming the demand of Customs duty, Central Excise duty, penalty, and ordering confiscation of goods. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to decide on merits after providing a fair opportunity to both parties. The appellant failed to present any supporting material before the lower authority despite ample opportunity. The challenge to the impugned order was based on the lack of basis for the liability calculation and failure to consider fulfillment of exemption conditions. The appellant's non-cooperative conduct was noted, along with the contention that duty was levied on entire imported goods without considering certain aspects like export of raw material and depreciation of capital goods. Regarding the pre-deposit requirement, the Tribunal observed that while the appellant may be entitled to some concession due to lapses in duty calculation, a prima facie case for waiver of the entire duty demand was not established. The appellant's arguments about financial hardship were not deemed sufficient. The appellant argued that duty confirmation should await the decision of the Development Commissioner as per a Circular, but the Tribunal found that total waiver of duty was not warranted at that stage. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty demanded within eight weeks, with a stay on penalty and interest pending appeal. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date. Overall, the Tribunal's observations were considered prima facie and subject to further review.
|
