Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Multi Flex Lami Print Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 2 April, 2004
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. These five stay applications, are disposed of by this common order, since the issue involved is the same, after hearing both sides.
2. The issue involved is valuation of jumbo rolls cleared from the factory of the manufacturer at Mahad to Silvasa, where they are further slitted and after slitting made into pouches and these pouches are thereafter cleared from Silvasa. The dispute of valuation is on the eligibility of certain deductions claimed by the appellants.
3. The learned advocate for the appellants strongly pleaded on the facts of sales of such jumbo rolls being effected at the factory in which in Mahad for substantial quantities. Therefore, the valuation of the said jumbo rolls cleared to Silvasa should be arrived at on the basis of such sale price found to be extended at the factory.
4. Mr. M.K. Gupta, the Jt C.D.R. pleading for the Revenue draws our attention to the fact that this plea was never an issue, as t was an admitted fact that the goods in question, which were removed to Silvasa factory, were not same goods, which were sold at the factory gate. He points out to the fact that valuation declaration were made by the appellants in Annexure II which would indicate that the appellants assessee also was of the understanding that the goods are not the same. The learned Jt C.D.R also relies upon the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd v. CCE 2000 (115) ELT 32 (SC) to submit that the demand of duty of Rs. 5380283/- as made out in this case have been made out correctly and pre deposit of the entire amount should be insisted upon.
5. It was brought on record by the advocate for the appellants that out of the duty demand of Rs. 5380283/- in all these case, they have already deposited Rs. 3204176/-. In this view of the matter and the fact that substantial portion of the demand stands deposited, we would find this as sufficient requirement of pre deposit of Section 35F of the Act, to be made in this case, no further deposit is being ordered, especially in view of the fact that no penal action has been arrived at and confirmed in this case. The issue of valuation of the goods will have to be considered after detailed hearing at the final stage in the appeals. At this prima facie. stage we would order waiver of pre deposit and stay of recovery thereof, pending the final hearing of these appeals.
6. Stay applications disposed of in above terms.
(Pronounced in Court)