2013 (4) TMI 773 - AT - Customs

Waiver and stay of demand - Penalty - Notification No. 196/94-Cus dated 08.12.1994 - Held that - the assessee is not claiming prima facie case against the demand of Central Excise duty. For the reasons already stated, their claim of prima facie case against the demand of Customs duty remains unsubstantiated and their plea of financial hardships is also unacceptable. In the result, there will be a direction to the appellant to pre-deposit the entire demand of Customs duty plus Central Excise duty (less ₹ 1 lakh already deposited) within six weeks and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar on 15.7.2013. In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the penalties imposed on the appellant and interest on duty.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Waiver and stay against demand of Customs duty and Central Excise duty.
3. Presence of capital goods without payment of duty.
4. Financial hardships claimed by the appellant.
5. Prima facie case against the demand of Customs duty.
6. Compliance and directions for pre-deposit of duties.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed a delay of 31 days in filing the appeal, which was satisfactorily explained by the appellant. The COD application was allowed after hearing both sides.
2. The application sought waiver and stay against the demand of Customs duty and Central Excise duty. The proceedings were against the Commissioner's order passed after a Tribunal remand order. The appellant had deposited Rs. 1,00,000 in an earlier round of litigation. The demand of Customs duty was related to capital goods procured without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that the goods were missing, and the appellant's plea was not properly considered in the earlier round. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not make out a prima facie case against the demand of Customs duty.
3. The judgment detailed the circumstances surrounding the presence of capital goods without payment of duty, highlighting discrepancies in the appellant's claims and the findings recorded in the Panchnama. The Tribunal found that the goods were missing from the premises, leading to a violation of relevant conditions and the liability to pay the foregone Customs duty.
4. The appellant pleaded financial hardships, referring to earlier orders and court directions related to their financial position. However, the Tribunal observed a lack of clarity on the compliance with previous court orders and the current financial condition of the appellant. The plea for waiver of pre-deposit due to financial hardships was deemed unacceptable.
5. The Tribunal considered the appellant's claim of a prima facie case against the demand of Customs duty and found it unsubstantiated. The plea of financial hardships was also rejected. The direction was given to pre-deposit the entire demand of Customs duty and Central Excise duty, with a timeline for compliance.
6. The judgment concluded with directions for compliance and pre-deposit of duties within a specified timeline, with provisions for waiver and stay in case of due compliance.