2011 (7) TMI 969 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation for delay - held that - error committed by the Consultant should not be a reason for not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal. Application for stay - Evasion of duty - misdeclaration - authorized signatory - held that - adjudicating authority has clearly recorded that the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad has reported, that signatures made on the application for Central Excise Registration Certificate, and the declaration, do not tally/match with the signatures of Shri S. Hotwani/Shri H. Bulchandani. This would definitely indicate that the applications for registration and declarations of stocks were not made by the appellant/applicants hereinabove either in their capacity as director of the companies or in their personal capacity. It is also seen from the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority that there is no corrobrative evidence on records, to come to a conclusion that the appellant company and two individuals had played any role in the entire exercise of duty evasion by M/s. KGPF. - Pre deposit waived - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Early hearing applications for out of turn hearing of stay petitions.
3. Waiver of pre-deposit of amounts indicated against the parties.

Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay:
The applicants filed condonation for delay applications citing approximately 51 days delay in filing the appeal. The Counsel explained the delay was due to the consultant overstaying abroad, urging that the error should not penalize the applicants. The SDR contested, suggesting the applicants should have made alternate arrangements. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found justifiable reasons for the delay, emphasizing that the consultant's error should not hinder the appeal process. Thus, the applications for condonation of delay were allowed, and the stay petitions and appeals were accepted.

Issue 2 - Early Hearing Applications:
The early hearing applications sought out-of-turn hearing for stay petitions, which were disposed of during the proceedings.

Issue 3 - Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
Several parties filed stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of specified amounts, which were confirmed with penalties for conniving in evading Central Excise duty. The Counsel represented some appellants, arguing that the authorities' findings were based on assumptions without direct evidence. The SDR contended that the appellants were involved in the evasion scheme with Mr. Rameshchandra Agarwal, supported by initial statements and documents. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the duty demand and penalties were imposed due to ineligible CENVAT credit utilization based on false declarations. The Tribunal highlighted discrepancies in signatures on applications and declarations, indicating the appellants' non-involvement. The adjudicating authority's acceptance that the applications were not signed by one appellant further supported this stance. Consequently, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, granting a waiver of the pre-deposit amounts and staying the recovery until the appeal's disposal.