2013 (11) TMI 1465 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of Goods under Rule 7 Or Rule 5 - sale price of depot or inclusion of freight - No evidence educed by the assessee - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - There was no reference to the evidence for the assessee to have correctly valued the goods under Rule 7 - The stay application merely claims that the appellant has made out a very strong prima facie case - It also states that, if any pre-deposit is directed, the appellant will be put to undue hardships - Neither of the pleas has been substantiated - the appellant is directed to pre-deposit amount as stated within the time stipulated Stay not granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for waiver and stay against demand of duty and penalty based on a valuation dispute.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved an application seeking waiver and stay against a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 32,920/- along with an equal penalty. Despite the absence of representation from the applicant and no request for adjournment, the Tribunal carefully examined the records and listened to the arguments presented by the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR). The crux of the matter revolved around a valuation dispute. The appellant contended that they had correctly paid the duty after determining the assessable value under Rule 7. However, the department argued that the appellant lacked evidentiary support for their valuation and invoked Rule 5 to support the demand of duty. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) relied on an explanation to Rule 5 to justify the imposition of duty. Notably, the Tribunal observed that the appellant's memorandum of appeal did not contain any reference to the evidence supporting the correct valuation of goods under Rule 7.

The stay application submitted by the appellant primarily asserted that they had a strong prima facie case and highlighted the potential undue hardships if a pre-deposit was directed. However, the Tribunal found that these assertions were not substantiated with evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit the demanded duty within six weeks from the receipt of the order's certified copy and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar by a specified date. The Deputy Registrar was tasked with reporting on compliance by a subsequent date. Additionally, the Tribunal instructed the issuance of a certified copy of the order within three working days. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open Court, emphasizing the procedural transparency and adherence to legal formalities in the decision-making process.