Composite supply valuation, clandestine removal allegations and extended limitation supported a pre-deposit and limited stay at the stay stage.

At the stay stage, the composite supply valuation was found prima facie unreliable because the price break-up did not reflect true transaction value, and a cost-based valuation was treated as supportable. Allegations that goods shown as bought from the Goa unit were in fact manufactured at Satara were also supported by the record, while asserted duty payment at Goa was not accepted as a sufficient rebuttal. Escalation bills were treated as prima facie includible in assessable value because no positive evidence showed they had been rejected or left unpaid. The pattern of suppression and account manipulation was considered sufficient to justify invocation of the extended limitation period, and full waiver of pre-deposit was not granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a case involving prima facie undervaluation of manufactured goods, alleged overvaluation of bought-out goods, alleged clandestine removal through another unit, and non-payment of duty on escalation bills; and whether the extended period of limitation was prima facie invocable.

Analysis: On the material available at the stay stage, the valuation adopted by the appellants in respect of composite supply contracts was found to be prima facie unreliable, since the break-up of prices did not reflect a true transaction value for the manufactured goods and the Department's cost-based valuation appeared supportable. The allegation that goods shown as purchased from the Goa unit were in fact manufactured at Satara was also supported by the record, and the claimed duty payment at Goa was not treated as a sufficient rebuttal at this stage. As regards escalation bills, no positive evidence was produced to show that the bills had been rejected or not honoured, so the amounts were treated as prima facie includible in assessable value. The pattern of suppression and manipulation of accounts was held sufficient, at the interlocutory stage, to justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: Full waiver was not granted. The appellants were directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 crores, and only on such deposit would the balance demand, interest, and penalties remain stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

---