2015 (10) TMI 1253 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - clandestine removal of LABSA - Held that - present demand relates to clearance of goods without payment of duty. Prima facie, on going through the order we find that the ld.Commissioner has recorded findings after analyzing the evidences adduced by both sides supported by reasons. The correctness of this order and analysis of evidences would be carried out at the time of disposal of the appeal. At this stage, the offer to deposit 7.5% of the confirmed demand seems to be reasonable. Consequently, the Applicant No.1 is directed to deposit 7.5% of 2.48 Crores within a period of eight weeks - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty
- Allegations of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment
- Authenticity of private records challenged
- Offer to deposit 7.5% of confirmed duty amount

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved a stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The application was filed by M/s. Sai Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. and individuals named Shri Sandeep Fogla, Shri Subrata Banerjee, and Shri Debashish Ghosh. The allegations against them pertained to clandestine removal of goods, specifically LABSA, during the period 1998-2001 without payment of duty. The appellant contested the demand, stating that it was based on private records whose authenticity was disputed. Despite the appellant's contentions being rejected by the Commissioner, they offered to deposit 7.5% of the confirmed duty amount as a gesture of cooperation.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the demand was related to goods cleared without duty payment. The Commissioner's findings were based on evidence presented by both parties, supported by reasons. The Tribunal acknowledged that a detailed analysis of the order and evidence would occur during the appeal process. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal found the offer to deposit 7.5% of the confirmed duty amount reasonable. Consequently, it directed Applicant No.1 to make this deposit within eight weeks and report compliance by a specified date. Upon such deposit, the balance dues against Applicant No.1 and all other applicants would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal. It was emphasized that failure to comply with the deposit directive would lead to dismissal of all appeals without further notice.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of duty pre-deposit waiver, allegations of clandestine removal without duty payment, challenges to the authenticity of private records, and the appellant's offer to deposit a percentage of the confirmed duty amount. The Tribunal's decision balanced the interests of the parties involved while ensuring compliance with legal procedures and obligations.