Tribunal rules against waiver request due to lack of evidence, directs deposit to avoid appeal dismissal.

The Tribunal found that M/s. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. and M/s. Bajrang Lal Agarwal did not establish a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Failure to submit relevant invoices hindered the determination of assessable value of goods on stock transfer basis. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount within eight weeks to avoid dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, determination of assessable value of goods cleared on stock transfer basis, violation of principles of natural justice.

Summary:
The case involved applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty by M/s. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. and M/s. Bajrang Lal Agarwal. The appellants were manufacturing Ingots and Sponge Iron and had cleared goods to their sister units on stock transfer basis. A show cause notice was issued alleging integrated method of determination of assessable value. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the method and imposed duty on the differential value and penalty. The Tribunal remanded the case to decide afresh considering the principles of law laid down in a previous case.

In the de novo adjudication, the impugned orders were passed. The Ld. Consultant argued that relevant documents were not considered, violating principles of natural justice. The Department argued that the adjudicating authority rightly determined duty liability and penalty based on valuation rules and verification reports.

The Tribunal found that the invoices submitted by the appellants were not considered by the adjudicating authority. The Ld. Consultant failed to produce the invoices before the Bench for verification. Without submission of relevant invoices, it was not possible for the adjudicating authority to determine if prices of goods sold were applied to stock transfer goods. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not made a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Compliance with the deposit directive was necessary to avoid dismissal of the appeal.

---