9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 942 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal of Goods - Evasion of Duty Under-valuation of MRP - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Following Belgium Glass And Ceramics (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India 2013 (8) TMI 123 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - The main appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.75 lakhs, which is more than 8% of the duty liability - the amount seems enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeals - the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts allowed till the disposal Stay granted.
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties for the main appellant and individuals. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, pertained to Stay Petitions filed by the main appellant, M/s Sterling Ceramics, and three individuals, seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties. The issue at hand revolved around the charge of duty evasion through clandestine removal and under-valuation of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) by tile manufacturers. The appellant's counsel argued that based on previous judgments, including one by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Belgium Glass, the appellant should be required to deposit only 8% of the duty liability. In this case, M/s Sterling Ceramics had already deposited Rs. 75 lakhs, which amounted to approximately 20% of the duty liability of Rs. 3.63 Crores. The Departmental Representative confirmed this deposit. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and records, the Tribunal acknowledged that the main appellant had indeed deposited an amount exceeding 8% of the duty liability, as per the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Belgium Glass. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the deposited amount of Rs. 75 lakhs as sufficient for hearing and disposing of the appeals. Consequently, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts were allowed, and recovery of the said amounts was stayed until the appeals were disposed of. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. M.V. Ravindran.
|
