2014 (1) TMI 1060 - AT - Central Excise

Duty liability issues in aluminum clearance case: deposit conditions, legality review, compliance deadlines

M/s JSK Industries Ltd. Versus CCE Vapi

The Tribunal addressed duty liability issues concerning alleged clandestine clearance of aluminum ingots and dross without payment. The appellant's ... Clandestine removal of ingots – Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- The issue is not free from doubt and needs to be gone into detail as to how the lower authorities have come to conclusion that the appellant has cleared the aluminum ingots from his factory premises clandestinely - whether the duty liability is worked out by the lower authorities is in consonance with law or not, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of appeals - the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.4 lakhs, further the appellant directed to deposit further an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted. Issues involved: Duty liability on ingots purportedly cleared without payment, clearance of aluminum dross without duty payment, whether appellant cleared aluminum ingots clandestinely, adequacy of duty liability determination by lower authorities, conditions for hearing and disposing appeals, compliance with deposit requirements, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.Analysis:1. Duty liability on ingots purportedly cleared without payment: The primary issue in this case revolves around the duty liability on ingots allegedly cleared without discharging the duty. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant had already deposited Rs.4 lakhs, which was acknowledged by the lower authorities. The contention was that the clearance of dross was considered as ingots clearance. The statement referred to indicated clearances of aluminum dross without duty payment. The first appellate authority's finding of clearance of dross without payment being an afterthought was challenged based on statements recorded before the show cause notice issuance, suggesting only dross clearances, which were non-dutiable.2. Clandestine clearance of aluminum ingots: The Tribunal found the issue not free from doubt and required detailed examination of how the lower authorities concluded that the appellant clandestinely cleared aluminum ingots from the factory premises. The legality of the duty liability calculation by the lower authorities was also questioned, emphasizing the need for a thorough review at the final appeal disposal stage.3. Conditions for hearing and disposing appeals: Recognizing the need to address the appellant's situation, the Tribunal decided to impose conditions for hearing and disposing of the appeals, considering the appellant's partial deposit of Rs.4 lakhs. A further deposit of Rs.3 lakhs was directed within eight weeks, with compliance to be reported by a specified date.4. Compliance with deposit requirements: The Tribunal's directive for the appellant to deposit an additional Rs.3 lakhs within a specified timeframe aimed at ensuring compliance and progressing with the appeal process. The compliance reporting deadline was set to monitor adherence to the deposit conditions.5. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery: Subject to the appellant's compliance with the deposit requirements, the Tribunal allowed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amounts, including duty, interest, and penalties. The recovery of these amounts was stayed pending the appeal's final disposal, providing temporary relief to the appellant.This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, Tribunal's observations, and the directives issued regarding the duty liability, clearance of ingots, compliance requirements, and the waiver of pre-deposit in the given judgment.