Pre-deposit and penalty in alleged diversion of raw materials turned on prima facie record manipulation and physical dealing with goods.

CESTAT, Mumbai held in a stay context that a manufacturing unit had not made out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit where records, statements and invoices indicated diversion of duty-free and indigenous raw materials, manipulation of statutory records, and fictitious clearances against advance licences/AROs. The unit was directed to make partial pre-deposit of duty, and its Special Power of Attorney holder and authorised signatory were also required to pre-deposit penalty because prima facie involvement in record maintenance and clearance documentation was shown. By contrast, penalties on persons who allegedly arranged fake advance licences/AROs were stayed in full, as the dispute was treated as a paper transaction without physical dealing with goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the manufacturing unit had made out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit in respect of duty and penalty demands arising from alleged diversion of duty-free and indigenous raw materials; (ii) whether the Special Power of Attorney holder and the authorised signatory of the unit were prima facie liable to penalty and required to make pre-deposit; and (iii) whether the penalties imposed on the persons who arranged the alleged fake advance licences/AROs were sustainable at the stage of stay, having regard to the absence of physical dealing with the goods.

Issue (i): whether the manufacturing unit had made out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit in respect of duty and penalty demands arising from alleged diversion of duty-free and indigenous raw materials.

Analysis: The allegations were supported by detailed findings that the imported and indigenously procured raw materials were diverted into the local market, statutory records were manipulated, and false entries were made to show fictitious clearances against advance licences/AROs. The unit's own statement was relied upon to show admission of diversion and fabrication of documents. In these circumstances, a case for total waiver was not made out.

Conclusion: The request for total waiver was rejected and the unit was directed to make partial pre-deposit of duty.

Issue (ii): whether the Special Power of Attorney holder and the authorised signatory of the unit were prima facie liable to penalty and required to make pre-deposit.

Analysis: The record showed their involvement in the unit's day-to-day affairs, maintenance of statutory records, and issuance of invoices showing clearances against non-existent supplies, with knowledge that the raw materials were not used in manufacture and were diverted to the open market. On that basis, the penal provisions were treated as attracted prima facie, though full waiver was not justified.

Conclusion: Pre-deposit of penalty was directed, with waiver only of the balance on compliance.

Issue (iii): whether the penalties imposed on the persons who arranged the alleged fake advance licences/AROs were sustainable at the stage of stay, having regard to the absence of physical dealing with the goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal found prima facie force in the contention that the penal provisions could not apply where the Commissioner himself had treated the transactions as paper transactions and there was no physical dealing with goods by those applicants. The cited penalty provisions were considered inapplicable at that stage on the reasoning that liability under the relevant provisions requires physical involvement with goods.

Conclusion: Pre-deposit of the penalties imposed on those applicants was waived and recovery was stayed.

Final Conclusion: The stay applications were allowed only in part, with partial pre-deposit directed against the manufacturing unit and its functionaries, while the penalties on the other two applicants were stayed in full at the interim stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty provisions of this kind are attracted, at least prima facie, only where the person is shown to have physically dealt with the goods or otherwise participated in the actionable handling of goods liable to confiscation; where the dispute is shown to be a mere paper transaction without such physical dealing, interim penalty liability is not made out.

---