2015 (2) TMI 879 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - fabrication of the bins and clearance from the factory with the chassis which is supplied by other manufacturers - Held that - Applicant fabricated bins which are kept at various places for collecting the garbage and the dumper placer are used to lift these bins from one place to another. It is also seen that the applicant prepared two sets of invoices showing that the description of goods as supply of bins in the invoice copy of the buyers while the description of goods was shown as fabrication and mounting of Dumper Placer body on chassis in the copy of invoices intended for the Department claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. So, we find that there is a factual dispute in respect of the description of the goods in the documents. Prima facie, we find that they have manufactured the bins only. So, the submission of the learned counsel would be examined at the time of hearing the appeal at length. Hence, the applicant s have not made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of entire amount of dues. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under CETA, 1985; Dispute over description of goods in documents; Prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of dues.

Classification of goods under CETA, 1985:
The applicants, engaged in manufacturing steel bins, were classified under sub-heading 8705 90 00 of CETA, 1985. However, after investigation, it was contended that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 7309 00 90. The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 1,28,26,710/- along with interest and penalty under the latter sub-heading. The applicants argued that they manufactured special purpose motor vehicles known as Dumper Placer Bins, falling under sub-heading 8705 90 00. They cited precedents to support their claim. The Revenue contended that the bins were fabricated for garbage collection and the dumper placers were used to transport them. The Tribunal noted a factual dispute regarding the goods' description in the documents, finding prima facie evidence that only bins were manufactured. The Tribunal directed the applicants to predeposit a specified amount pending further examination during the appeal.

Dispute over description of goods in documents:
The Tribunal observed that the applicant prepared invoices with differing descriptions of the goods - one for buyers indicating supply of bins and another for the Department showing fabrication and mounting of Dumper Placer body on chassis to claim exemption. This raised a factual dispute regarding the actual nature of the goods manufactured. The Tribunal found that the applicants had primarily manufactured bins based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the Tribunal directed a partial predeposit pending further review during the appeal process.

Prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of dues:
Considering the arguments presented and the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not established a strong prima facie case for full waiver of the predeposit of the entire dues. As a result, the Tribunal directed the applicants to predeposit a specified amount, with a partial waiver upon compliance. The recovery of the balance dues was stayed during the pendency of the appeals, subject to the specified predeposit being made within the stipulated timeframe.