2014 (4) TMI 716 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Penalty under provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appellant has only issued the invoices facilitating the purchase to avail cenvat credit which were ineligible as the material/input was not supplied along with the invoices - Held that - issue is not free from doubt in as much as the statement of the authorised signatory of the appellant clearly indicates as being confronted with the report from RTO, he has admitted the vehicles were in capable of carrying the quantity of inputs as mentioned against the invoices. At the same time, we also find that the invoices which are attached to the appeal memoranda indicate vehicle numbers and weigh bridge slips. All the invoices attached to the appeal memoranda and the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority needs to be considered in detail which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we find that the appellant has not made out a prima facie for the complete waiver of the amount of penalty imposed - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad revolves around a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.1,74,845 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contended that the invoices issued were solely for facilitating the purchase to avail cenvat credit, but the material was not supplied along with the invoices, rendering them ineligible. The Tribunal, after examining the submissions and records, found the issue not free from doubt. The authorized signatory of the appellant admitted that the vehicles mentioned in the invoices were incapable of carrying the quantity of inputs specified. However, the invoices attached to the appeal memoranda included vehicle numbers and weigh bridge slips. The Tribunal determined that a detailed consideration of all invoices and the adjudicating authority's findings was necessary at the final disposal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not establish a prima facie case for a complete waiver of the penalty imposed. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.50,000 within eight weeks and report compliance by a specified date. Upon compliance, the application for the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts was allowed, and recovery stayed pending the appeal's disposal.

This judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims for waiver of pre-deposit under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It highlights the necessity for detailed scrutiny of all relevant documents and submissions to establish a prima facie case. The Tribunal's decision to require a partial deposit based on the circumstances of the case demonstrates a balanced approach to addressing issues of non-compliance with excise regulations. The judgment emphasizes the significance of compliance and reporting requirements within specified timelines to avail of relief pending the appeal process. Overall, the analysis provides insights into the Tribunal's considerations when evaluating requests for waiver of pre-deposit in excise matters, emphasizing the need for clarity and substantiation in such applications.