2016 (1) TMI 101 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - Considering the attachment of properties by the Bank, Revenue was directed to ascertain the steps taken to safeguard Revenue. When the matter was listed today for final disposal of the stay petitions, the LD. Advocate submits that the department has attached the properties under Section 142. Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted a copy of the letter dated 01.01.2015 by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, wherein he has confirmed about the attachment of immovable properties with the sub-registrar, Salem. We also find that the Joint Commissioner (Review) vide letter 04.12.2014, addressed to the Commissioner (AR) enclosed the list of attachment of properties movable and immovable under Rule 9 & 10 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. The total value of the properties as per Annexure 3A & 3B amounts to ₹ 85,17,99,817/-. After the attachment, the properties were handed over to the appellant for its safe custody. - appellants have not made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues. - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit application
- Demand of duty based on computer printout
- Procedure under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Non-relied upon documents under Section 24 A of the Central Excise Rules
- Financial hardship due to property attachment

Waiver of Pre-deposit Application:
The applicants, engaged in manufacturing Sponge Iron and M.S. Ingots/Billets, filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit due to a demand of duty, interest, and penalty for clandestine removal. The demand was based on a computer printout, contested by the applicants on grounds of computer purchase date and procedural lapses. The Revenue argued that the printout was verified and undisputed, emphasizing the lack of non-relied upon documents collection by the applicants. The Tribunal found no strong prima facie case for waiver due to the applicants' failure to collect relevant documents and financial hardship claims.

Demand of Duty Based on Computer Printout:
The case revolved around the demand of duty for clandestine removal of goods, supported by a computer printout recording transactions. The applicants challenged the validity of the printout pre-March 2008, citing procedural non-compliance under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted the printout verification and lack of dispute on its origin, dismissing the procedural argument and emphasizing document supply to the applicants.

Procedure under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The applicants contended that the department failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 36B while obtaining the computer printout. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, as the printout's authenticity and verification were established, and the department had provided necessary documents to the applicants.

Non-relied Upon Documents under Section 24 A of the Central Excise Rules:
The applicants raised concerns regarding non-relied upon documents under Section 24 A, alleging lack of supply. The Tribunal noted the direction for document collection, which the applicants failed to comply with, impacting their case for waiver of pre-deposit.

Financial Hardship Due to Property Attachment:
The applicants highlighted financial distress, attributing it to the closure of their unit and property attachment by the bank. The Tribunal acknowledged the attachment of properties valued at a significant amount, which secured the duty amount, leading to a decision against further deposit due to the circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the applicants' case lacking a strong prima facie basis for waiver of pre-deposit, considering the verified printout, document supply, and property attachment securing the duty amount. The main appeal was scheduled for a future hearing based on these considerations.