2014 (8) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - short payment of duty - difference in the production figures shown in the RT-12 returns and the data reflected in respective balance sheets - Held that - figures mentioned in the balance sheet were incorrect inasmuch as there was some mistakes in booking the figures by the concerned C.A. In support they have obtained Chartered Accountants Certificate for the said mistakes and placed before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) which was not considered. In these premises, we are of the view that the Appellants should be given a fair chance to present their case - while remanding the case the Appellant be put into terms - matter remanded back conditionally.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Central Excise Rules, 2002.

1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 31.78 Lakhs and an equal penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, along with an additional penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 27 of the same rules.

2. The appellant's representative argued that the Commissioner did not decide the issue on merit but dismissed the appeal due to non-payment of the directed amount. The issue pertained to a demand for duty based on discrepancies between monthly RT-12 returns and annual balance sheets. The representative claimed errors in the balance sheet figures due to misinterpretation of data and offered to deposit Rs. 5.00 Lakhs, requesting a remand to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

3. The Revenue's representative acknowledged that the issue was not decided on merit and had no objection to remanding the case to the Commissioner for a reevaluation.

4. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal at that stage with the consent of both parties, avoiding the need for remand.

5. The Tribunal identified the core issue as the underpayment of duty due to discrepancies in production figures between RT-12 returns and balance sheets. It was noted that the balance sheet figures were incorrect, attributed to mistakes made by the Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant should have the opportunity to present their case and directed them to deposit Rs. 5.00 Lakhs within eight weeks for further proceedings before the Commissioner, who was instructed to proceed without demanding additional pre-deposit. The appellant was granted a fair hearing opportunity, and all issues were left open. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of.