2014 (5) TMI 408 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of duties - CENVAT Credit - Held that - adjudicating authority has recorded detailed findings as regards authenticity of the notebook, statements of the transporter, director and the employee. The evidences relied upon by the adjudicating authority needs to be appreciated with the defence taken by the appellant in the grounds of appeal, which will take considerable time as the defence taken by the appellant seems to be diagonally opposite to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. This can be done only at the time of final disposal of appeals. appellants have not made out a case for complete waiver of the amounts of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Keeping in mind that the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs 32 lakhs during the course of investigation - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of duties, interest, and penalties

The judgment in the present case revolves around the stay petitions filed by the appellant seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of duties amounting to Rs. 18,03,03,302 and Rs. 94,99,291, along with interest and penalties imposed on the appellant firm and its director. The adjudicating authority confirmed the amounts due to the appellant availing ineligible CENVAT Credit and raising the credit without receiving the inputs.

Analysis:

1. The appellant's counsel argued that the investigations were initiated based on the recovery of a notebook from the appellant's factory, alleging unaccounted inputs and clearances. The counsel contended that the Revenue's case relied solely on transporter statements indicating input transportation to the factory. The appellant maintained that certain entries in the notebook supported the receipt of inputs. The counsel urged a detailed examination of the issue, highlighting the Rs. 32 lakhs deposited during the investigation as sufficient for hearing the appeals.

2. The Revenue's representative countered, stating that the demand was calculated from the maintained notebook entries by a company employee. The appellant did not dispute the notebook's existence or the entries within it. The representative emphasized that the company's director accepted the notebook entries as accurate.

3. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, acknowledged the detailed findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the notebook's authenticity, transporter and employee statements. The Tribunal noted the substantial discrepancy between the appellant's defense and the authority's findings, requiring a thorough examination during the final appeal disposal.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not establish grounds for a complete waiver of the confirmed duty amounts. Considering the Rs. 32 lakhs already deposited, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an additional Rs. 3.5 Crores within twelve weeks. Upon compliance, the applications for waiver of the remaining amounts were allowed, and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal.

In conclusion, the judgment balanced the appellant's request for a waiver with the Revenue's contentions, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the conflicting evidence before final disposal of the appeals.