Judgements

Ravi Steels Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 October, 2003

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Ravi Steels Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 (158) ELT 358 Tri Mumbai
Bench: J Balasundaram, A M Moheb


ORDER

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance duty of Rs. 8,94,341/- (out of the total duty demand of Rs. 13,44,341/- a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- already stands paid during the investigation) and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai. The duty has been confirmed on the ground inter alia that the applicants in collusion with Merchant manufacturers for whom they were processing the fabrics on job work basis, had mis-declared the assessable value of the processed fabrics by suppression of the actual cost of grey fabrics.

2. We have heard both sides and perused the records and find that the charge of collusion entirely stems from admission of the two merchant manufacturers that the applicants by colluding with them, had instructed them to file incorrect declaration. The argument that the extended period of limitation is not available, prima facie, is not acceptable/ as this is not the stage for us to consider whether the charge of collusion stands established even by a statement of a single or more merchant manufacturers and the aspect of collusion and consequent applicability of the extended period of limitation will be considered when the appeal is taken up for hearing. No strong prima facie case for total waiver has been made out in view of the above. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and noting that a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs already stands paid, we direct further pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance duty and the penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice.

3. Compliance to be reported on 16-12-2003.