2013 (11) TMI 80 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Chennai Orders Pre-Deposit for Match Manufacturer in Suppression Case

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI directed the first applicant, a manufacturer of matches, to pre-deposit Rs. 2,00,000 and the second and third ... Waiver of Pre-deposit - Clandestine Removal of Goods – Held that:- Applicant No. 1 has suppressed the production and has clandestinely removed the suppressed production of matches without payment of duty - they have cleared illicitly mechanized dipped bundles without payment of duty - Applicant No. 2 & 3 have admitted the clandestine removal of the goods - applicant No. 1 has already deposited a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs - Applicant No. 1 directed to pre-deposit Rs. 2,00,000 and Applicant No. 2 & 3 to pre-deposit Rs.25,000 - Upon such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance dues stand waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals – Partial stay granted. Issues:Waiver of predeposit of duty, clandestine removal of goods, suppression of production, penalty waiver.Analysis:The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved multiple applications arising from a common order regarding the waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty. The first applicant, a manufacturer of matches, sought waiver of duty amounting to Rs.19,61,377, along with interest and penalty. The second applicant, a partner in the firm, and the third applicant, in charge of the firm's Head Office, also applied for waiver of penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs each. The Tribunal observed that the first applicant had clandestinely removed suppressed production of matches without paying duty, including illicitly mechanized dipped bundles. The second and third applicants admitted to the clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal directed the first applicant to pre-deposit Rs. 2,00,000 and the second and third applicants to pre-deposit Rs.25,000 each within six weeks. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date. Upon such deposit, pre-deposit of the remaining dues would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal process. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing the issues of suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods while balancing the need for pre-deposit of dues and penalty waivers. The decision aimed to ensure compliance with legal obligations while providing a mechanism for resolving the matter through the appeals process.