2014 (1) TMI 623 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - MS ingots removed without payment of duty - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The proceedings against the show cause notice dated17.05.2005 for demanding duty were dropped by the Tribunal s order dated 30.08.2007 - The Appellant have explained that for the same cause the duty has been demanded for the 2nd time - the applicants are able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of amount pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Discrepancy in stock of M.S. Ingots leading to duty demand.
- Previous Tribunal order setting aside another show cause notice for the same quantity.
- Request for waiver of entire amount adjudged during the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata involved an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant sought relief due to a discrepancy in the stock of M.S. Ingots as reported in the balance sheet and the daily stock register. The duty was demanded on the alleged removal of 103.196 MT of ingots without payment. Notably, the Tribunal had previously set aside another show cause notice for the same quantity, indicating a potential issue of double jeopardy. The applicant argued that since proceedings were initiated for the same amount twice, the entire adjudged amount should be waived during the appeal's pendency.

During the proceedings, the applicant's consultant highlighted that the discrepancy in stock was the basis for the duty demand. The officers found a difference in the stock quantity as per the daily register and physical verification, leading to the duty demand. The Tribunal acknowledged that a previous order had dropped proceedings related to a similar cause, emphasizing the applicant's explanation for the repeated demand. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged. Consequently, the recovery of the amount was stayed during the appeal, granting the stay application.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of a discrepancy in stock leading to duty demand, the Tribunal's previous order on a similar matter, and the applicant's request for the waiver of the entire adjudged amount during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal allowed the stay application, recognizing the applicant's prima facie case for relief in light of the repeated demand for the same quantity.