9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f detail in various heads including (i) fictitious commission earning; (ii) disproportionate consumption of chrome & clandestine removal of unaccounted finished goods; (iii) falsification of record showing disproportionate consumption of chromium; and, (iv) undervaluation of job worked goods. After considering the case of the assessee the Tribunal has found that there is no reason or justification to grant complete waiver of pre-deposit. We find no substantial question of law that would warrant the Court to interfere since the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee essentially requires the Court to re-appreciate the evidentiary material. This is not the scope of the present appeal, which can be entertained only on a subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice of the department that the assessee had earned a huge amount by way of commission namely ₹ 21.19 crores during 1996-97. Several transactions in connection therewith were examined. Eventually, a notice to show cause was issued to the assessee on 21 March 2000 alleging that during the period December 1995 to January 1999 the assessee had clandestinely cleared 5871.17 metric tons of S.S. Flats valued at ₹ 17.80 crores, on which central excise duty of ₹ 2.67 crores was evaded. The extended period of limitation was invoked under Section 11-A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By an order of adjudication of the Commissioner of Central Excise1 dated 29 March 2007, the duty demand of ₹ 2.67 crores was confirmed, bes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of the assessee before the Tribunal on the date of compliance. The assessee thereupon moved the Tribunal again. On 7 January 2013, the Tribunal held that no case was made out prima facie for the waiver of pre-deposit in its entirety and reiterated its earlier order for the deposit of a sum of ₹ 40 lacs in two instalments of ₹ 20 lacs each payable on or before 14 February 2013 and 7 March 2013. On remand, the Director was called upon to deposit a further sum of ₹ 10 lacs by 14 February 2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, two appeals5 have been filed one by the assessee and another by its Director. These appeals were initially listed on 18 February 2013, 20 February 2014 and 31 March 2014 and have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 in the background of its own observation made in the earlier stay order that prima facie the case requires extensive examination both on the facts as well on the question of law raised by the counsel of the Appellants; (iv) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in directing to deposit ₹ 40 Lakhs during the pendency of the Appeal when the entire demand raised is time barred, when in fact no ingredients have been attracted for extending the larger period of limitation contemplated in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944; (v) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in directing the Appellants to deposit ₹ 40 Lakhs when the principles of natural justice were sacrificed by the Commissioner while adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the previous proceedings, the only point which had been urged, as would be evident from the order of the Division Bench, was the issue of financial hardship. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has also considered the prima facie case and has discussed the issue in a considerable amount of detail in various heads including (i) fictitious commission earning; (ii) disproportionate consumption of chrome clandestine removal of unaccounted finished goods; (iii) falsification of record showing disproportionate consumption of chromium; and, (iv) undervaluation of job worked goods. After considering the case of the assessee the Tribunal has found that there is no reason or justification to grant complete waiver of pre-deposit. We find no substantial q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
