2013 (11) TMI 1212 - AT - Central Excise

Unaccounted production - Production not reflected in ER-I Return Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The resin powder reflected in monthly return of M/s. Allied Resins Pvt. Ltd., were in fact manufactured by the applicant in as much as M/s. Allied Resins were not having any machinery for their manufacture - the yield of finished products to the extent of 55% of the total inputs consumed - the duty has been demanded as the same was not reflected in the ER-I Returns filed by the applicants - the applicant had not determined the value correctly in case of their stock transfer of the goods - The applicants have not been able to make a case of full waiver of the pre-deposit applicant directed to pay 50% of the duty as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand and penalty imposed under Section 11AC.
2. Unaccounted production and undervaluation of stock transferred goods.
3. Failure to attend hearings and request for adjournments.

Analysis:
1. The applications sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand and penalty imposed on the company and its CEO. The Central Excise officers conducted a stock verification at the company's premises and found discrepancies in the stored goods. It was revealed that the company had manufactured goods for another entity using its machinery, leading to duty demands. The applicants failed to attend multiple hearings, resulting in the tribunal deciding the case based on the submissions made by the Revenue's representative.

2. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed that the goods reflected in the monthly return of another entity were actually manufactured by the applicant, as the other entity lacked the necessary machinery. Statements from the company's authorized representative and the General Manager of the other entity supported this claim. Duty demands were made for unaccounted production and undervaluation of stock transferred goods, which were not reported in the ER-I Returns filed by the applicants.

3. Despite multiple hearing dates being scheduled, the applicants requested adjournments on various grounds, including the unavailability of their advocate. The tribunal, considering the facts presented by the Revenue and the applicants' failure to attend hearings, decided not to grant a full waiver of the pre-deposit. Citing legal principles and previous court decisions, the tribunal directed the company to pay 50% of the duty within a specified time frame, with the balance dues waived and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of duty demand waiver, unaccounted production, undervaluation of goods, and the consequences of failing to attend hearings, providing a comprehensive overview of the tribunal's decision and the reasons behind it.