2015 (6) TMI 260 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Evasion of duty - Fabrication of TRA to omit GSM - Held that - It is prima face case of Revenue that TRAs were fabricated to omit GSM with intent to evade duty which cannot be ruled out at this stage. Revenue s submission that GSM decides the duty liability is appreciable. Prima facie , all the appellants had hand in glove to cause loss to Revenue without mentioning the GSM in TRAs when DFRC specifically mentioned GSM with appropriate description of the goods. The TRAs fabricated without GSM mentioned therein were used to cause evasion of duty to the extent of ₹ 29,92,424/-. Therefore, considering financial difficulties expressed, prima facie , and noticing that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of Revenue, to protects its interest and without expressing any opinion at this stage, predeposit as under is directed to be made by the appellants noted against each within 8 weeks - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty evasion through fabricated TRAs without mentioning GSM.
2. Imposition of penalty on various appellants.
3. Predeposit waiver requests by the appellants.
4. Compliance with predeposit orders for stay of recovery during appeal.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this judgment involves duty evasion through the fabrication of TRAs without mentioning GSM, leading to a duty liability of Rs. 29,92,424. The Revenue argues that the omission of GSM in TRAs was intentional to evade duty, emphasizing that GSM determines duty liability. The appellants, including importers and brokers, claim innocence and financial difficulties, seeking a waiver of predeposit. The tribunal notes the seriousness of duty evasion and directs predeposit by the appellants within 8 weeks.

2. The second issue pertains to the imposition of penalties on various appellants. The penalties range from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 9,50,000, with predeposit amounts specified for each appellant. The appellants argue against the penalties, citing lack of means to make predeposits. The tribunal considers the penalties imposed and directs compliance with predeposit orders to protect the Revenue's interests.

3. The third issue involves the predeposit waiver requests made by the appellants. Appellants present arguments regarding their innocence, lack of involvement in fabricating TRAs, and financial constraints. Some appellants have already deposited a portion of the penalties during investigation. The tribunal evaluates these requests and orders predeposits within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of compliance with predeposit rules.

4. Lastly, the judgment addresses compliance with predeposit orders for the stay of recovery during the appeal process. The tribunal highlights the history of the case, including the recall of an ex parte stay order and subsequent directions for predeposit. Emphasizing the significance of predeposit as a rule, the tribunal stresses the necessity of compliance to avoid prejudice to the Revenue. Parties are directed to make predeposits within the stipulated timeframe for the waiver of balance demands and the stay of recovery during the appeal period.