Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case that it was not the manufacturer of the excisable goods and, consequently, whether a further pre-deposit was required under the stay provisions.
Analysis: The dispute arose from a plea that the goods were manufactured by another company under a memorandum of understanding, while the appellant continued to retain central excise registration and file returns. The recorded materials did not show that the transfer arrangement had been carried into legal effect, nor that the alleged transferee had sought transfer of registration or followed the excise procedure. On the available record, the appellant's continued registration, returns, and non-communication of the arrangement to the department weighed against its claim. In such circumstances, the appellant failed to establish a foolproof prima facie case against the duty demand, and the material on record indicated that duty liability could attach to the appellant.
Conclusion: A further pre-deposit was warranted, and the appellant was directed to deposit an additional amount, with waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery upon compliance.