2011 (10) TMI 96 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with stay order, pre-deposit reduced to Rs.1.5 Lakhs, compliance directed.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order requiring a pre-deposit. Allegations of bogus invoices and discrepancies in ... Cenvat credit - Respondent contended that vehicle number entered in the invoice do not match with the vehicles in which the goods were supplied. Therefore, it was found that the invoices are bogus - demand was confirmed by both the lower authorities alongwith interest and penalties - Appelant contended that As the godown of the supplier is situated at some other place from the place which the invoices has been prepared, the vehicle numbers has been entered in the invoices as submitted by the transporter themselves - Held that as vehicle Nos. do not match the invoices and the vehicles are of such a nature which cannot transport the impugned goods, therefore, the merit of the case is to be seen by the Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing the issue - duty of the Tribunal to protect interest of Revenue also. In these circumstances, the applicant to make a pre-deposit - matter remanded back. Issues:- Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of stay order directing pre-deposit.- Allegations of bogus invoices and credit taken against them.- Discrepancy in vehicle numbers on invoices and actual vehicles used for transportation.- Request for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit due to financial hardship.Analysis:- The appellant's appeal was dismissed for failing to comply with the stay order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs.2.00 Lakhs against a total demand of Rs.6,27,387. The lower authorities confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties due to discrepancies in vehicle numbers on invoices and actual vehicles used for transporting goods, leading to allegations of bogus invoices and unauthorized credit taken against them.- The appellant's advocate argued that the impugned order lacked merit and that the goods were indeed received, with payments made through cheques. The discrepancy in vehicle numbers was explained as being due to the supplier's godown being located separately from where invoices were prepared, with transporter inputting vehicle numbers. The advocate also highlighted the closure of the appellant's factory since 2002 and requested an unconditional waiver of the pre-deposit, urging a fresh hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit.- The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, acknowledged that the impugned order did not address the case on merit. While not delving into the case's substance, the Tribunal noted the discrepancy in vehicle numbers and the nature of vehicles being unsuitable for transporting the goods. To balance the interests of both parties, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a reduced pre-deposit of Rs.1.5 Lakhs and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) by a specified date. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to then decide the case on merit without requiring any further pre-deposit, aiming to protect the Revenue's interests.- Ultimately, both appeals and the stay application were disposed of based on the revised pre-deposit terms set by the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for compliance and a subsequent merit-based decision by the Commissioner (Appeals).