2014 (4) TMI 50 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Revenue has contended that PVC granules do not stand received by the appellant and credit so availed was not available to them - Held that - The entire evidence relied upon is required to be examined for coming to final conclusion which can only be done at the time of disposal of the appeals. Suffice it to say at this stage that the applicants have not been able to make out a good prima facie in their favour so as dispense with condition of pre-deposit of entire amount of penalty and duty - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Application to dispense with pre-deposit of confirmed amount
- Allegation of non-receipt of PVC granules by the appellant
- Contention regarding utilization of PVC granules in final product manufacture
- Requirement of further deposit by the appellant
- Stay on recovery of penalty during appeal pendency

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved an application seeking the dispensation of the pre-deposit condition of Rs.61,78,804 confirmed against the appellant, along with penalties and interest. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing plastic furniture, faced allegations regarding the non-receipt of PVC granules, a crucial raw material, due to suppliers invoicing with vehicle numbers not corresponding to the actual goods delivered. The Revenue argued that the appellant wrongly availed credit for these non-received PVC granules.

The appellant, supported by their advocate, contended that they had legitimately claimed credit based on supplier invoices, with detailed records in RG-23A Part-I and utilization of PVC granules in their final products. They emphasized the lack of evidence from the Revenue to support the claim of non-receipt and questioned the possibility of manufacturing final products without the essential raw material. The Tribunal acknowledged the contentious nature of the issue, requiring a thorough examination of all evidence during the appeal process.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant had not sufficiently established a strong prima facie case to entirely dispense with the pre-deposit condition. The appellant had already deposited Rs.20 lakhs, and the Tribunal directed them to further deposit Rs.10 lakhs within eight weeks. Upon this additional deposit, the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining duty amount and penalties imposed on both applicants would be waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal proceedings. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complexities surrounding the alleged non-receipt of PVC granules by the appellant, highlighting the need for a detailed examination of evidence during the appeal process. The Tribunal's decision balanced the appellant's financial obligations with the requirement for further deposit, ensuring a fair resolution while the appeal progressed.