2013 (8) TMI 25 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit Clandestine removal - Entire demand is based upon various evidences like statements of the partners of M/s PMC, proprietor of M/s Patel Electric Co., suppliers of raw material, transporters and purchasers - The adjudicating authority has gone on record to state that the Revenue authorities have reconciled the entire figures and worked out the demand based upon the diary recovered from the Shri Jaswantbhai O. Santoki, who is a brother of partner of M/s PMC - Suppliers of raw material and purchasers of finished goods of the main appellant M/s PMC had categorically stated that there was supply and purchases of the goods in cash and unaccounted, - The main appellant M/s PMC has not made out any case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved - M/s PMC(main appellant) has deposited an amount of Rs.50 lakhs Directed the main appellant M/s Patel Manufacturing Company to deposit further an amount of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) within a period of sixteen weeks

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty liability, interest, and penalty
- Clandestine removal of goods based on evidences and statements

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved multiple Stay Petitions seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of duty liability, interest, and penalty confirmed against the main appellant, M/s Patel Manufacturing Co. The demand was raised on the grounds of clandestine removal of copper winding wire, supported by various evidences and statements. The appellant's counsel argued that the demand was based on figures from a recovered diary and contested the authenticity of implicating statements made by involved parties, including retracted statements by partners and suppliers. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative asserted that reconciliation was done based on statements of purchasers and suppliers indicating transactions without proper documentation.

The key issue in this case revolved around the clandestine removal of goods, with the demand being calculated from evidence such as statements from involved parties. The adjudicating authority mentioned that the demand was reconciled based on the recovered diary and statements from various individuals. The Tribunal noted that suppliers and purchasers had confirmed unaccounted transactions, leading to the decision that the appellant had not sufficiently proven grounds for a complete waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized the need to delve deeper into the issue during the final disposal of appeals, considering the complexity of the evidence presented.

In light of the appellant's deposit of Rs.50 lakhs, the Tribunal directed M/s Patel Manufacturing Company to deposit an additional Rs.50 lakhs within sixteen weeks and report compliance. The waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts was allowed, with recovery stayed until the appeals' final disposal. The decision highlighted the importance of further investigation into the issue of clandestine removal and the necessity of detailed examination of evidence during the appeal process.