2014 (4) TMI 715 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of benefit of modvat credit - invoice issued by registered dealer - Revenue entertained a view that it was only paper transaction without the actual movement of the goods to the appellant factory. - Held that - Entire evidence on record is required to be taken into consideration for arriving at a final conclusion. Suffice it to say, at this interim stage, the appellants have not been able make out a good case in their favour so as to allow the stay petition unconditionally. As regards limitation, we find that in such cases of fraud, the extended period is available to the Revenue - apart from making a bald statement in the stay petition, there is no evidence reflecting upon the poor financial status of the appellant - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of modvat credit leading to duty confirmation.
2. Alleged paper transaction without actual movement of goods.
3. Request for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
4. Financial difficulty of the appellant.
5. Availability of extended period for Revenue in cases of fraud.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the denial of modvat credit leading to the confirmation of duty against the appellant. The Revenue contended that the goods obtained from a registered dealer were not actually manufactured by the supplier, raising doubts about the legitimacy of the transaction. This denial of credit formed the basis of the duty confirmation against the appellant.

2. The Revenue alleged that the transaction between the appellant and the supplier was merely a paper transaction without the actual movement of goods to the appellant's factory. Investigations revealed that the supplier was not a functioning unit, lacking machinery and electricity connections necessary for manufacturing the goods in question. This raised suspicions regarding the authenticity of the transaction.

3. The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The appellant's representative argued for an unconditional stay, presenting invoices and witness statements to support their case. However, the Revenue highlighted the findings of lower authorities regarding the lack of machinery and business activities at the supplier's premises, weakening the appellant's position for an unconditional stay.

4. Financial difficulty was raised as a concern by the appellant's representative. However, the tribunal found the evidence of poor financial status lacking, noting the absence of balance sheets or substantial proof supporting the claim of financial hardship. The tribunal emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in such matters.

5. The tribunal considered the issue of limitation and the availability of an extended period for the Revenue in cases involving fraud. Despite the appellant's arguments, the tribunal found that the evidence on record did not strongly favor the appellant at the interim stage. Consequently, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set period, with the waiver of the balance amount of duty and penalty subject to compliance.