2014 (2) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

Stay - Valuation - Carbon-di-oxide were sold to TAC at a lower price than the one sold to SICGIL - Held that - processes of CO2 supplied to TAC and SICGIL are different. However, this will be considered at the time of appeal hearing. We find that applicant already paid a sum of Rs.24,27,310/- as per earlier stay order of the Tribunal. In view of that, we direct the applicant to make a further deposit of an amount of Rs.10,00,000 within 8 weeks. Upon such deposit, predeposit of balance duty along with interest and penalty is waived and its recovery is stayed during pendency of the appeal - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty on the sale of Carbon-di-oxide to related persons.
2. Determination of whether the gas supplied to different buyers can be treated as "such goods" for valuation purposes.
3. Consideration of the quality and quantity differences in the gas supplied to different buyers.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the assessment of duty on the sale of Carbon-di-oxide to related persons. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to determine whether one of the buyers, TAC, is a "related person." The Commissioner, in the de novo adjudication order, confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and penalty for the specified period. The appellant argued that TAC, being an associated company, should not be considered a related person. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a further deposit, waiving the predeposit of the balance duty during the appeal's pendency.

2. The issue of whether the gas supplied to different buyers can be treated as "such goods" for valuation purposes was also addressed. The appellant highlighted the quality differences in the gas supplied to TAC and SICGIL, emphasizing that the Commissioner did not consider the process involved. The Revenue contended that there was a vast difference in prices between the buyers and only a marginal difference in the CO2 process. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submission regarding the different processes but deferred a detailed consideration to the appeal hearing.

3. The judgment also delves into the consideration of quality and quantity differences in the gas supplied to different buyers. The appellant presented a diagram showing the stages of CO2 supplied to TAC and SICGIL, indicating a variance in quality. The Revenue argued for the Commissioner's order compliance with the Tribunal's direction and highlighted price disparities. The Tribunal acknowledged the quality differences but deferred a detailed assessment to the appeal hearing, directing the appellant to make a further deposit while waiving the predeposit of the balance duty during the appeal's pendency. Compliance was set to be reported on a specified date.