2012 (2) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Excisability of weigh bridge - Revenue was of the view that inasmuch as all the parts and components of weigh bridge are being cleared by the appellant under the cover of one invoice, the same amounts to clearance of complete weigh bridge in SKD or CKD condition - Held that - appellants have placed on record a letter from the Revenue, obtained by them in terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In terms of the said letter, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e. Order-in-Appeal Nos. 196 & 197/CE/D-II/2011, dated 18-4-2011 stands accepted by the Committee of Commissioner and no appeal stand filed against before the Tribunal. In view of the above development, we are of the view that the appellant has a strong prima facie case in its favour so as to allow both stay petitions unconditionally - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Stay petition regarding the deposit of entire duty amount.
2. Demand confirmation against the appellant for the period 2003-2008.
3. Dispute on the excisability of weigh bridge parts.
4. Initiation of proceedings by Central Excise authorities.
5. Entitlement to unconditional stay based on previous decisions.
6. Counterarguments by the Revenue.
7. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the appellant.
8. Acceptance of Commissioner (Appeals) order by the Committee of Commissioner.
9. Release of seized goods during the pendency of stay petitions.
10. Fixing the appeal for final disposal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a stay petition following the direction of the High Court's order to reconsider the earlier stay order requiring the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount. The demand of Rs. 1,71,40,806/- was confirmed against the appellant for the period 2003-2008 by invoking the longer period of limitation. The appellant, involved in manufacturing weigh bridge parts, faced a dispute with the Revenue regarding the excisability of these parts, leading to the initiation of recovery proceedings.

2. The appellant cleared all parts of the weigh bridge under one invoice, which the Revenue considered as clearance of a complete weigh bridge in SKD or CKD condition. The appellant argued for unconditional stay citing previous decisions in their favor and challenging the demand on the grounds of limitation, highlighting ongoing proceedings across different Commissionerates.

3. The Revenue contended that the appellant's actions constituted clearance of a complete weigh bridge due to clearing all parts under one invoice, distinguishing it from previous cases where parts were not cleared simultaneously. The Revenue emphasized that demands in earlier cases were raised by officers at the customer's premises, unlike the current scenario where duty was related to weigh bridges cleared from the appellant's factory.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed a detailed order in favor of the appellant, considering the unique nature of pit and pitless weigh bridges compared to normal weigh bridges. The Commissioner's decision incorporated legal precedents such as judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ultimately setting aside the original adjudicating authority's order.

5. The appellant presented a letter from the Revenue indicating acceptance of the Commissioner (Appeals) order without filing an appeal before the Tribunal. This development strengthened the appellant's case for unconditional stay, leading the Tribunal to grant the stay petitions unconditionally and order the release of seized goods during the pendency of the petitions.

6. The Tribunal fixed the appeal for final disposal on a specified date, recognizing that the issue was prima facie covered by earlier decisions. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal precedents involved in the case.

← Previous Next →