2014 (1) TMI 681 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture and clearing of dutiable as well as non-dutiable goods No separate accounts maintained - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Prima facie, the appellant did not maintain separate accounts in respect of plastic crates, and if that be so, they were liable to pay 5% of the value of the crates (excluding taxes) in terms of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rupees thirty lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant.
2. Demand of Rs. 86,42,618/- under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for 'mango slice' cleared during a specific period.
3. Lack of separate accounts maintained by the appellant for dutiable and exempted final products.
4. Financial hardships claimed by the appellant.
5. Direction for pre-deposit and compliance timeline set by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant applied for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the demanded amount of Rs. 86,42,618/- under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for 'mango slice' cleared during a disputed period. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted final products, leading to the confirmation of the demand. The appellant's consultant failed to establish a prima facie case against the demands due to the lack of documentation supporting the claim that the plastic crates were procured before the disputed period and used in rotation.

2. The appellant's consultant cited financial hardships, supported by Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss accounts. However, the documents reflected the financial status only until 31.3.2011, not the relevant period. Despite claims of financial strain, the Tribunal noted a comfortable financial position based on the available documents, with profits exceeding Rs. 4 crores as of 31.3.2011. The absence of current financial evidence from the appellant further weakened the plea for financial difficulties.

3. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- within ten weeks and report compliance by a specified date. The appellant was given time as requested by the consultant. Compliance was to be reported to the Deputy Registrar, who would then inform the Bench accordingly. Upon satisfactory compliance, waiver and stay were granted for the remaining dues, providing a clear direction for the appellant to follow within the prescribed timeline.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the Tribunal's findings, and the directives given to the appellant regarding pre-deposit, financial evidence, and compliance timelines.