2014 (10) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver granted for duty, interest, and penalty by Tribunal due to paid duty on goods.

The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit for duty, interest, and penalty confirmed against the applicant. The Tribunal found that duty was paid on goods ... Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty - applicants was clearing their finished products through Pir-Pau and BPT pipelines to their warehouses - Held that:- Prima facie the Pir-Pau pipeline belongs to the applicant as contended by them and they are paying duty on the clearance of the goods. With regard to BPT pipeline, the demand has been confirmed on the basis of presumption and assumption. As in the earlier round of litigation, unconditional waiver has been granted by this Tribunal [2012 (3) TMI 364 - CESTAT MUMBAI], thus, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty, interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted. Issues:Seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty confirmed against the applicant.Analysis:The case involved the applicant seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty confirmed against them. The facts revealed that the applicant was clearing finished products through Pir-Pau and BPT pipelines to their warehouses. Duty became payable at the refinery after the withdrawal of warehousing facility. A show-cause notice was issued in 2009 demanding duty on finished products in the pipeline. The applicant contended that the Pir-Pau pipeline was within their refinery premises, and duty was paid at clearance. Regarding the BPT pipeline, they argued that it did not belong to them and was used by other companies. The applicant requested waiver of pre-deposit based on a previous grant of waiver by the Tribunal.In response, the A.R. opposed the applicant's contentions, stating that the verification report was inconclusive due to the applicant's failure to submit required data. The A.R. argued that the claim of ownership of the Pir-Pau pipeline was contradicted by the verification report. The A.R. insisted that the applicant should pay the entire demand. After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the Pir-Pau pipeline belonged to the applicant, and duty was being paid on goods clearance. As for the BPT pipeline, the demand was based on presumption and assumption. Given the previous unconditional waiver granted by the Tribunal in a similar case, the Tribunal decided to grant waiver of pre-deposit for the entire amount of duty, interest, and penalty, staying recovery during the appeal's pendency. The judgment was dictated in open court by the presiding judge.