2015 (3) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - valuation - sale to related parties - mutuality of interest - Held that - There is no dispute that the applicant cleared the goods to the related persons. It is seen that there is a wide difference in prices for rods of similar strength and width as could be evident from the sale invoices of the transaction with the above two dealers and the sale invoice for the transaction made on the same days to the other buyers. It has been observed that the applicant has not placed evidence that they have sold the excisable good to unrelated buyers at lower value at which they sold the goods to the two dealers. In the case of Jai Balaji Jyoti Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2014 (8) TMI 749 - CESTAT KOLKATA whereby unconditional stay was granted in an identical situation. Tribunal granted stay on the ground that merely because there is a common director between the assessee and the other two units. It is observed that there is no material available that there is mutuality of interest between the two parties. In the present case, there is evidence placed by the Revenue that the transaction price between the assessee and the two dealers are much lower than the transaction value of other buyers. So, the case law relied upon by the applicant would not be applicable in the present case. - there is mutuality of interest on the basis of evidence placed by the Revenue that the transaction value of the two dealers is much lower than the transaction value of other buyers and therefore the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of entire dues. The learned consultant has not pleaded any financial hardship. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Discrepancy in pricing for goods sold to related and unrelated buyers, demand of duty, waiver of predeposit.

Discrepancy in Pricing for Goods Sold:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing TMT rods, faced a show-cause notice due to a significant price difference in goods sold to related dealers and unrelated buyers. The notice alleged duty evasion on sales to related persons compared to independent buyers. The adjudicating authority upheld the duty demand. Upon review, the Tribunal noted the price gap in sales to related and unrelated parties, emphasizing the lack of evidence from the appellants to justify the pricing difference. The appellants sought to submit additional documents to support their case, citing a previous Tribunal decision for reference. However, the Tribunal found the cited case inapplicable due to the lack of evidence establishing mutuality of interest between the parties. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence presented by the Revenue supported the pricing irregularity, leading to a directive for predeposit of a specified amount.

Waiver of Predeposit:
The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence and arguments, found no prima facie case for waiving the predeposit requirement. Notably, the appellants did not demonstrate financial hardship to justify a waiver. Based on the evidence indicating a substantial price gap between sales to related and unrelated buyers, the Tribunal directed the appellants to predeposit a specific sum within a set timeframe. Compliance was mandated, failing which the balance dues would remain payable. The Tribunal granted a stay on the recovery of the outstanding amount pending the appeal process, contingent upon the stipulated predeposit.

In summary, the judgment addressed the discrepancy in pricing for goods sold to related and unrelated buyers, the demand of duty based on this pricing irregularity, and the decision regarding the waiver of predeposit. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing pricing justifications, ultimately directing the appellants to predeposit a specified amount while staying the recovery of the remaining dues during the appeal period.