2011 (2) TMI 1168 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - appellant had requested the lower authorities for giving single registration for plant 1 and 2 - Held that - It is undisputed that unit 1 and 2 are of the same assessee. The goods have been transferred on stock transfer basis and there is no sale - Revenue neutrality - find strong force in the contention of assessee that the registration certificate should have been issued effective from 2001. Having not done so they cannot be put to further difficulty by demanding differential duty - assessee has a prima facie case has been made for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount involved - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed amount under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB due to alleged improper valuation of goods transferred between plants.

Analysis:

1. Background and Arguments:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.2,60,80,437/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, pertaining to differential duty for improper valuation of goods transferred between plant 1 and plant 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay in granting single registration for both plants led to the duty payment issue. The appellant had initially applied for single registration in 2001, which was later granted in 2008 after legal interventions.

2. Legal Proceedings and Orders:
The High Court directed the lower authorities to process the single registration application in response to a Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Subsequently, the Tribunal's Order set aside the initial rejection of the registration application, which was later confirmed upon the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the High Court. The appellant contended that if the registration had been granted in 2001 as per the Tribunal's direction, no duty payment would have been necessary.

3. Contentions and Decision:
The Revenue argued that the duty liability was applicable as the units were considered separate assessees. However, the Tribunal found that both units belonged to the same assessee, and the transfer of goods was on a stock transfer basis without any sale, leading to a revenue-neutral situation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's counsel that the registration certificate should have been issued from 2001, and failing to do so should not result in demanding differential duty. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the amount until the appeal's disposal.

4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the units were of the same assessee, and the delay in issuing the registration certificate should not penalize the appellant with additional duty payments. By granting the waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal acknowledged the prima facie case made by the appellant and ensured that the recovery of the disputed amount was stayed pending the appeal's resolution.