2013 (11) TMI 1624 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, determination of assessable value under Central Excise Valuation Rules, invocation of extended period of limitation, financial hardship of the unit.

Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty:
The applicants filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on them, based on the impugned Order-in-Original passed in pursuance of a remand order. The contention was that the assessable value should be determined under Section 4(1)(a) of CEA, 1944, as there was no mutuality of interest among the inter-connected units. It was argued that the value should be based on the transaction value charged to independent buyers, not under the valuation rules. The applicants also cited financial hardship due to being under BIFR.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Special Counsel for Revenue highlighted that this was the third round before the Tribunal, with previous remand orders directing a fresh decision based on verification reports. The Commissioner found no sale to independent buyers during the relevant period, leading to a reduced duty demand. It was argued that as no appeal was filed against the previous remand orders, the findings had attained finality, and the applicants could not introduce new arguments at this stage.

Determination of Assessable Value:
The Tribunal noted that the cost construction method was applied only when evidence of sale to independent buyers was lacking. The applicants failed to provide contrary evidence on this issue. Previous remand orders had considered all legal issues raised by the applicants, and as those orders were not challenged, they had finality. The Tribunal held that raising new issues in the third round of litigation would be beyond the scope of the remand orders. Consequently, the applicants were directed to deposit 25% of the dues adjudged against each appeal within eight weeks, with the remaining dues waived and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.

Financial Hardship of the Unit:
Considering the financial hardship expressed by the applicants, the Tribunal balanced the interests of Revenue with settled legal principles, directing the deposit of a portion of the dues while waiving the remaining amount and staying recovery during the appeal process.