2013 (12) TMI 1032 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - The appellants have specifically stated that they have only purchased Aluminum scrap from M/s Archer Metal Limited there was merit in the contentions that the demand of duty on M/s Archer Metal Ltd. is as regards clandestine removal of aluminum foils and aluminum coils - There is no demand of duty on M/s Archer Metal Ltd for aluminum scrap either removed clandestinely or otherwise - both the appellants have dealt with the goods which are liable for confiscation - the appellants have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved. As regards the appellant Shri R.K. Virani, his statement has indicated that they have procured aluminum coils/foils from M/s Archer Metal Ltd. - The evidence on record needs to be gone into details as regards the role played by him in respect of such dutiable products. - We are of the view that Shri R.K. Virani needs to be put to some condition for hearing - appellant directed to submit Rupees Fifty Thousands as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on individuals for dealing with goods liable for confiscation.

Analysis:
1. The penalties were imposed on individuals for dealing with goods known to be liable for confiscation. After hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the penalties imposed on two individuals were not justified. The appellants had only purchased aluminum scrap from a specific company, and there was no demand of duty on that company for the aluminum scrap. Therefore, the appellants were considered to have made a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalties imposed on them.

2. Regarding another individual, it was noted that they had procured aluminum coils/foils from the same company. However, further investigation into the evidence regarding the individual's role in dealing with dutiable products was deemed necessary. As a result, this individual was directed to deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe and report compliance. The waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount was allowed subject to compliance, and recovery was stayed until the appeal was disposed of.

3. Ultimately, all the stay petitions were disposed of according to the specific details mentioned for each individual involved in the case. The judgment provided a clear decision on the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties based on the circumstances and evidence presented for each appellant.