2013 (8) TMI 462 - AT - Central Excise

Stay Application - Pre-deposit of amount - In respect of four traders - Appellant-RUL not submitted any assessment order of Sales-tax/VAT Authority of respective State. Moreover, report sent by Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner does not incorporate the names of M/s Goverdhan Sales Agency and M/s S.S. Traders as their registered assesses. Similarly, registration of M/s New General Company was cancelled in 1995 by the said Authority. In respect of M/s V.K. Trading company, applicant did not show any evidence in respect of their contention about existence of said firm- appellant-RUL does not have a prima facie case in respect of these four traders Held that - Pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks. Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
2. Allegation of clearing excisable goods clandestinely without payment of duty.
3. Existence and registration status of trading firms involved in the case.
4. Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit.
5. Compliance with assessment orders of Sales-tax/VAT Authority.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involved applications by M/s Rathi Udyog Ltd (RUL) seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 58,15,019/- with an equal amount of penalty imposed by the Commissioner. Other appellants also sought waiver of pre-deposit for penalties imposed on them.

2. RUL, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, faced allegations of clearing goods clandestinely without duty payment. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on RUL and other appellants. The case revolved around goods sold at the factory gate and transferred to depots, with trading activities involving procurement from traders in various locations.

3. The Advocate for the applicant argued that the demand against RUL was based on goods purchased from specific traders, some of whom had valid registrations and assessment orders. However, the Revenue contended that the summoned traders were not found at given addresses, leading to doubts about their existence. The judgment analyzed the registration status and existence of the trading firms involved.

4. The Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in the context of some traders based on submitted assessment orders and registration details. However, for other traders, lack of evidence regarding registration and existence led to a different conclusion.

5. The judgment directed RUL to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs within a specified timeframe for certain traders, with a stay of recovery for the balance amount pending compliance. Compliance with assessment orders of Sales-tax/VAT Authority was crucial for determining the prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit.

In conclusion, the judgment carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented by both sides to determine the necessity of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in the case involving alleged clandestine clearance of excisable goods without duty payment.