2013 (11) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine Procurement and Removal of Goods Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Mere papers were supplied without the goods being supplied. He has also seen that commission transaction were made only to issue papers to enable the appellant to cause loss to Revenue - The bank transaction were examined which suggests self cheque drawals in various unusual manners - Adjudication order brought out nexus of the appellant proving mere paper transaction without dealing with the goods - It is not possible to grant waiver of pre-deposit - appellant company directed to deposit Rs. 80 lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Rivalry contentions on procurement of goods, fictitious transactions, clandestine removal of goods, grant of natural justice, waiver of pre-deposit, stay application pending for hearing.

Analysis:
1. Procurement of Goods and Fictitious Transactions: The judgment revolves around the clandestine procurement of raw materials and removal of finished goods through fictitious transactions. The Adjudicating Authority highlighted the use of mere invoices without actual goods being received, indicating a pattern of fraudulent activities by the appellant company. The examination of various suppliers revealed a systematic ill design to cause a loss to Revenue by issuing papers without actual goods transactions, as detailed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order.

2. Clandestine Removal of Goods: The Adjudicating Authority extensively discussed the issue of clandestine removal of goods against fictitious invoices. Specific suppliers were scrutinized, and it was established that the appellant company engaged in commission transactions solely to issue papers without dealing with the goods, ultimately causing a loss to Revenue. The examination of bank transactions further revealed irregularities, such as self-cheque withdrawals and bogus clearings, indicating a deliberate attempt to engage in paper transactions without actual goods transactions, as outlined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order.

3. Grant of Natural Justice and Pre-Deposit Waiver: The judgment concluded that due to the substantial evidence of fraudulent activities and the inability to establish genuine transactions, the appellant company was directed to deposit a significant amount within a specified timeframe. The decision not to grant a waiver of pre-deposit was based on the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the nature of transactions and the potential loss to Revenue. The order emphasized the importance of compliance and directed the appellant to make the necessary deposit within the stipulated timeline, as stated in paragraph 4 of the order.

4. Stay Application: The judgment also addressed the pending stay application of the Director, highlighting the need for further proceedings related to the case. The Registry was instructed to keep a copy of the order in the stay application record for reference, and both parties were directed to inform the court when the stay application was scheduled for disposal, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the order.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzed the issues of procurement of goods, fictitious transactions, clandestine removal of goods, grant of natural justice, pre-deposit waiver, and the pending stay application. The decision to uphold the directive for a significant deposit by the appellant company was based on the detailed examination of the fraudulent activities and irregularities uncovered during the proceedings.