9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 156 - AT - CustomsWaiver of pre-deposit of duty - Suppression of facts - Extended period of limitation - Held that - there is no challenge against the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that it is time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and B-17 Bond does not cover the Advance DTA Sale in terms of C.B.E. & C. s Circular dated 17-11-1999. In these circumstances, the Applicant has made out a prima facie case in their favour for total waiver of the pre-deposit. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and recovery thereof, is stayed during the pendency of the Appeal - Stay granted.
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on time-barred demand and coverage under B-17 Bond for Advance DTA Sales.
Issue 1: Time-barred demand The applicant filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 86,644.00, contending that the demand is time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence of suppression of facts by the applicant and concluded that the demand during the extended period is not tenable. However, the Commissioner upheld the demand confirmation based on the condition of the B-17 Bond. The Tribunal noted that there was no challenge against the Commissioner's finding that the demand is time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case in their favor for a total waiver of the pre-deposit. As a result, the requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and recovery thereof was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Issue 2: Coverage under B-17 Bond for Advance DTA Sales The applicant argued that the B-17 Bond does not cover the Advance DTA Sales as per para 6(ii) of C.B.E. & C.'s Circular No. 76/99-Cus., dated 17-11-1999. The Tribunal considered this argument along with the time-barred nature of the demand. Despite upholding the demand confirmation based on the B-17 Bond condition, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's contention regarding the coverage of Advance DTA Sales. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery during the appeal's pendency, indicating a favorable view towards the applicant's position on the coverage under the B-17 Bond for Advance DTA Sales. In conclusion, the Tribunal, comprising Shri S.K. Gaule, Member (T), and Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J), allowed the stay petition, waived the requirement of pre-deposit, and stayed the recovery of the duty during the appeal process. The judgment highlighted the importance of the time-barred nature of the demand and the coverage under the B-17 Bond for Advance DTA Sales in determining the applicant's entitlement to the waiver.
|
