2013 (11) TMI 1026 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Evasion of Central Excise Duty - Not recording of correct clearance Held that - There is factual recording by the adjudicating authority that the appellant maintained parallel set of statutory records like RG 1 and invoices etc. - the authorities has given reasoning for coming to the conclusion for confirmation of the demands - shortage of raw materials, maintenance of parallel records by the appellant, raises suspicion against the appellant; as to why they need to do so - at this juncture it is not possible to appreciate, that the records were maintained by the appellant in order to enhance their loan and credit limit with the bankers - revenue has not corroborated the clandestine removal findings or clandestine manufacture - All the legal points raised by the appellant s needs deeper consideration and is possible only at the time to final disposal of appeal - the appellant has not made out prima facie case for complete waiver of pre deposit amount involved Assessee directed to submit Rs.15 lacs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Stay petitions against waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty
- Allegations of evasion of Central Excise Duty and maintenance of parallel set of records
- Financial hardships claimed by the appellant
- Corroborative evidence and reasoning for confirmation of demands
- Conditions imposed for hearing and disposing the appeal

Analysis:
The judgment deals with two stay petitions challenging the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant was accused of evading Central Excise Duty by not recording correct clearances and maintaining parallel statutory records. The appellant argued that they correctly recorded duty paid clearances and maintained parallel records only to secure additional bank credit. The Revenue authorities alleged clandestine activities based on the parallel records and possession of certain documents. However, the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence such as unusual consumption of resources or transporters' statements. The appellant claimed financial hardships due to bank actions under SARFAESI Act.

The appellate tribunal considered both sides' submissions and reviewed the records. They noted the factual findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the parallel records and shortage of raw materials, raising suspicions. While acknowledging the need for deeper consideration of legal points during the appeal, the tribunal found no prima facie case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit amount due to lack of demonstrated financial hardships. Despite the appellant's net profit as per the balance sheet, the tribunal imposed a condition for the appellant to deposit Rs 15 lakhs within 8 weeks for hearing the appeal, with further compliance and reporting requirements.

In conclusion, the tribunal directed the appellant to comply with the deposit condition and report to the Dy Registrar within a specified timeline. The application for waiver of the remaining balance was allowed subject to compliance, and recovery of the amount stayed until the appeal's final disposal. The judgment was pronounced on 30.10.2013 by the appellate tribunal.