2012 (10) TMI 588 - AT - Central Excise

Non discharge of Excise duty - mis-declaration of MRP - Stay Petitions filed for waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - In the cases of identically placed other appellants, the Hon ble High Court had directed them to deposit an amount of 8% of the duty. As in this case, the appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.6 lakhs, which is more than 8% of the amount of duty, the said amount as enough deposit for hearing and disposing the appeal by first appellate authority. The appeals are remanded to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh

Summary

Issues:
Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties based on non-compliance of pre-deposit order by the first appellate authority, mis-declaration of value of ceramics glazed tiles cleared from factory premises.

Analysis:
The Stay Petitions were filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties totaling Rs.47,15,755/-, along with penalties on the appellant firm and its partners. The duty liability and penalties were imposed due to alleged improper valuation of ceramics glazed tiles and mis-declaration of MRP. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, leading to the issue of the appeal being dismissed. However, considering that the appellant had already deposited Rs.6 lakhs during the investigation, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petitions for waiver of the remaining balance amounts and proceeded to take up the appeals for disposal.

The main issue in the case revolved around the mis-declaration of the value of ceramics glazed tiles cleared from the factory premises. Comparing with similar cases, where other appellants were directed to deposit 8% of the duty by the High Court, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had already deposited Rs.6 lakhs, exceeding the 8% threshold. Thus, the Tribunal considered this amount sufficient for the hearing and disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the first appellate authority for reconsideration of the issue afresh. The Tribunal emphasized the need for following the principles of natural justice and refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, leaving all issues open for the first appellate authority's consideration before reaching a conclusion. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, providing a fresh opportunity for the case to be reviewed and decided upon.