2014 (1) TMI 9 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine Removal of Goods Clearance made by improperly declaring the retail sale price Undervaluation of Tiles - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The Tribunal has been following judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat that an assessee should deposit 8% of the amount of duty confirmed - The appellant has deposited an amount which is more than 8% of the duty liability - the amount already deposited is enough to hear and dispose the appeals Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, penalty, and interest amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. Duty Demand, Penalty, and Interest Confirmation:
The stay petitions were filed by the appellant seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, penalty, and interest amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The amounts in question were related to undervaluation of tiles manufactured and cleared by improperly declaring the retail sale price. The duty demand for M/s. Ajita Sil Chem Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 99,46,624/- along with a penalty of the same amount, while Shri Pradipbhai Dayabhai Patel faced a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The adjudicating authority had confirmed these amounts, leading to the filing of the stay petitions.

2. Deposit Amount Consideration:
The appellant had already deposited Rs. 30 lakhs during the proceedings before the lower authorities, which was more than 8% of the duty confirmed. The appellant's counsel argued that based on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, an assessee should deposit 8% of the duty confirmed. Since the appellant had already exceeded this percentage with the Rs. 30 lakhs deposit, the counsel requested a waiver of the pre-deposit of the balance amounts. After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed deposited an amount exceeding the 8% requirement set by the High Court of Gujarat. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts and stayed the recovery until the disposal of the appeals.

3. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal, consisting of Mr. M.V. Ravindran, allowed the stay petitions for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved in the duty demand, penalty, and interest confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal based its decision on the appellant's deposit, which exceeded the 8% requirement set by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The recovery of the balance amounts was stayed until the appeals were disposed of, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.