2009 (1) TMI 615 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit requirement under Section 11A
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC
3. Demand for interest under Section 11AB
4. Inclusion of transportation charges in assessable value

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an appeal where the appellant was directed to pre-deposit a specific amount towards duty confirmed under Section 11A, along with an equal penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB. The dispute primarily revolved around the inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value of the goods. The appellant argued that the charges represented freight from the depot to the buyer's premises, contending that such charges should not be part of the assessable value as per Central Excise law. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the charges were actually incurred from the factory gate to the depot, alleging that the appellant collected money in the guise of transportation charges without evidence of payment to transporters. The appellant presented a Certificate from a Chartered Accountant, which the Department refused to accept due to the absence of supporting documents.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that transportation charges from the place of removal should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the Department lacked substantial evidence to refute the appellant's claims, especially after disregarding the Chartered Accountant's Certificate. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's financial hardship, highlighting that the company was closed and under the purview of the BIFR. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire dues until the appeal's disposal, emphasizing that no coercive measures should be taken by the Revenue even after the stay order's expiration and until the appeal's finalization. The appeal was scheduled for a final hearing on a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the pre-deposit requirement, penalty imposition, interest demand, and the contentious issue of transportation charges in the assessable value. It highlighted the importance of evidence, the relevance of legal provisions, and considerations of financial hardship in rendering a decision favorable to the appellant.