2014 (1) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Shortage of goods Comparison of Figures mentioned in ER-1 Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Except the shortage, there is no other evidence to indicate that the goods were cleared without payment of duty from the factory - The applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs.4,65,299/- during the course of investigation the applicants could able to make a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, personal penalty on Director and employee of the company.

Analysis:
The case involved applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.22,19,858, along with an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, a penalty of Rs.10,000 under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and personal penalties of Rs.50,000 on the Director and Rs.10,000 on an employee of the company. The appellant's representative argued that the demand was based solely on discrepancies between production/clearance figures in the balance sheet and ER-1 figures, with no other evidence to prove goods were removed without payment of duty. It was highlighted that neither employees nor directors admitted to such wrongdoing, and a partial amount had already been deposited during the investigation.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the case revolved around shortages of goods identified through a comparison of figures from ER-1 and the balance sheet by the audit team. Both sides acknowledged the discrepancies but agreed that there was no additional evidence to support the allegation of goods being cleared without payment of duty. The Tribunal considered the amount already deposited during the investigation, amounting to Rs.4,65,299, and found that the applicants had made a prima facie case for a total waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit were allowed, and the pre-deposit of dues adjudged against each applicant was waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit based on the lack of substantial evidence beyond the identified discrepancies in figures, acknowledging the amount previously deposited and allowing a stay on recovery during the appeal period.