2013 (11) TMI 583 - AT - Central Excise

Confirmation of Differential Duty Supply to SEZ - Waiver of Pre-deposit Penalty u/s 11AC of CE Act Held that - Relying upon BARODA ELECTRIC METERS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 1997 (7) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - All the issues are debatable and needs to be considered from various angles before coming to any conclusion - the amount deposited by the appellant is enough to hear and dispose the appeals as the issues needs deeper consideration - the applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of differential duty on the appellant on the following counts:
(a) Payment of 10% of the value of goods to SEZ developers without duty payment.
(b) Security deposit for mould manufacture.
(c) Profit on insurance difference.

Analysis:

Issue (a):
The appellant contested the demand of Rs. 11.49 Lakhs, having already deposited Rs. 7.08 Lakhs, arguing the applicability of the Tribunal's judgment in the Sujana Metals case to supplies to SEZ units. The Tribunal noted the debatable nature of all three issues and the need for thorough consideration. Referring to the Sujana Metal case and the Baroda Electric Meters Limited case, the Tribunal found the issues required deeper analysis. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts, staying recovery until the appeal's disposal.

Issue (b):
The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions made by the appellant's counsel regarding the already deposited amount and the contestation on merits. Considering the arguments presented by the departmental representative, the Tribunal emphasized the debatable nature of the issues at hand. By referencing previous judgments, the Tribunal highlighted the need for comprehensive examination before reaching a conclusion. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted the waiver for the balance amounts, halting recovery pending the appeal's resolution.

Issue (c):
In light of the appellant's contentions and the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal carefully reviewed the case. Recognizing the complexity and debatability of the issues raised, the Tribunal referenced relevant legal precedents to support its decision. By citing specific cases, the Tribunal underscored the necessity for a thorough evaluation before making a final determination. Consequently, the Tribunal approved the waiver of pre-deposit for the outstanding amounts, suspending recovery until the appeals were finalized.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's consideration of the contested issues, the legal arguments presented, and the application of relevant case law to reach a decision on the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal resolution.