2011 (10) TMI 537 - AT - Central Excise

Stay of recovery of duty - Demand of differential duty - Held that - every assessment is a separate assessment and they have paid the duty on the transaction value of the goods cleared for home consumption. The applicant is able to make out the prima facie case in their favour. In these circumstances pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Stay of recovery of duty and penalty

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application for the stay of recovery of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 28,391.00 and Rs. 10,000.00, respectively. The main contention of the applicant was that they had cleared goods for export, but the consignment was rejected and returned to the factory. Subsequently, after re-processing, a portion of the goods was exported, while the remaining goods were cleared for home consumption. The Department demanded a differential duty on the goods cleared for home consumption, alleging that the duty was not discharged based on the transaction value of the exported goods. The applicant argued that each assessment is distinct, and they had paid duty as per the transaction value for the goods cleared for home consumption. They contended that there was no requirement to pay any differential duty. On the other hand, the Revenue claimed that the applicant had not followed the required procedure while bringing the goods to the factory, thereby contravening Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's argument that each assessment is separate, and they had indeed paid duty based on the transaction value for goods cleared for home consumption. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the applicant's case, granting a waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The recovery of the same was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, thereby allowing the Stay Petition.

This judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of separate assessments for duty payment concerning goods cleared for export and home consumption. The Tribunal emphasized the applicant's compliance with duty payment based on the transaction value for goods cleared for home consumption, supporting the notion that each assessment is distinct. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the applicant's argument regarding the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during the appeal process, ultimately ruling in favor of the applicant. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the significance of transaction value in duty assessment for goods cleared for different purposes.