Pre-deposit waiver in excise valuation dispute allowed where separate registrations and sale transactions undermined job-work allegations.

The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit where the demand proceeded on the theory that the units were only job workers and that Rule 10A valuation applied. It noted that both the appellants' units and the receiving units were separately registered with the central excise department, and the record did not clearly establish inter-relationship or mere job-work status. The transactions were otherwise shown as sales on payment of duty, and if the assessable value was disputed, the demand should have been raised against the registered receiving units rather than the appellants for trading in goods. On that basis, the entire pre-deposit was waived and interim stay was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in a demand alleging that the units were only job workers and that valuation under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 applied.

Analysis: The appellants' units and the receiving units were independently registered with the central excise department, and the record did not clearly establish that they were inter-related or that the receiving units were mere job workers. The adjudication order proceeded on the basis of control over raw material supply and book adjustments, but the transactions were otherwise shown as sales on payment of duty. If the department disputed the assessable value adopted by the receiving units, the demand ought to have been addressed to those registered units, not to the appellants merely for trading of goods. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to waiver of the entire pre-deposit, and the stay applications were allowed.

---