2014 (1) TMI 780 - AT - Central Excise

Duty liability prior to 01.01.2003 - kits included in the third schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act only w.e.f. 01.06.2006 or not Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The conduct of the party is such that there are contradictions with regard to the date of manufacture of the kits - the dates of clearances were handwritten by the assessee on computer-generated invoices - The assessee by such conduct appears to have landed themselves in a shadow of doubt - Such a party cannot claim prima facie case against the demand assessee directed to pre-deposit only an amount of Rupees Ten lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver and stay of adjudged dues on goods cleared as kits prior to a change in excise duty law. Dispute over the date of manufacture of the kits and contradictions in the conduct of the party.

Analysis:

The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay regarding the adjudged dues amounting to Rs. 30,86,816, related to goods cleared as kits consisting of one chain and two sprockets under 45 invoices dated 31.05.2006. The appellant argued that duty of excise was not leviable on such kits manufactured before 01.06.2006, citing a Tribunal's decision in a similar case. The Additional Commissioner pointed out that the appellant admitted liability under 14 invoices and claimed CENVAT credit on sprockets, which was not fully accepted initially. The appellate authority, however, allowed the claim subject to proof, potentially reducing the outstanding duty to around Rs. 11.25 lakhs.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's reliance on the previous decision as a precedent was not valid due to contradictions in the date of manufacture of the kits in the current case. The dates of clearances were manually entered on computer-generated invoices, creating doubt about the accuracy of the information provided by the appellant. Despite this, considering the claim of CENVAT credit, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 6 weeks. Compliance was to be reported to the Deputy Registrar by a specified date, with waiver and stay granted for penalties and the remaining duty and interest contingent upon compliance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of accurate record-keeping and transparency in dealings to establish a prima facie case against an impugned demand. The judgment highlighted the significance of providing sufficient proof to support claims, especially in cases where there are discrepancies or contradictions in the information presented by the party involved.