1999 (8) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of deposit of duty and penalty in Appeal No. E/4007/98.
2. Discrepancies in exported quantity and related issues.
3. Validity of refund granted under Rule 57F(3) in Appeal E/4018/98-Bom.
4. Joint liability for repayment of refund amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Waiver of deposit of duty and penalty in Appeal No. E/4007/98
The appellant sought a waiver of deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 30.86 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the exported quantity, leading to a higher stated quantity than what was actually exported. However, the appellant argued that the exported detergent was procured from elsewhere and not manufactured by Ajit Sons. The Commissioner's order invoking the extended period under Section 11A was challenged due to lack of evidence supporting mis-declaration. The Tribunal noted that the goods were examined before export, and there was no clear evidence of suppression by the appellant. Considering the lack of evidence and the limitation aspect favoring the appellant, the Tribunal waived the deposit of duty and penalty.

Issue 2: Discrepancies in exported quantity and related issues
The Commissioner held that the export of detergent did not take place, making the refund granted under Rule 57F(3) erroneous and recoverable. The refund repayment was deemed joint responsibility of both Ajit Sons and the appellant for misleading the department. The demand for duty repayment related to inputs used in manufacturing goods with disputed export status. The appellant's status as a manufacturer was also questioned. The Tribunal found it challenging to establish prima facie that the appellant was a manufacturer and waived the deposit of duty demanded.

Issue 3: Validity of refund granted under Rule 57F(3) in Appeal E/4018/98-Bom
The Commissioner's order in Appeal E/4018/98-Bom was based on the earlier appeal's findings. The refund granted was considered erroneous due to the non-occurrence of the export. The joint liability for refund repayment was imposed on both Ajit Sons and the appellant. The Tribunal noted the complexity of the situation and the need for further examination on jurisdiction and merits. The appeals were scheduled for a detailed hearing to address these issues comprehensively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the discrepancies in exported quantities, the validity of the refund granted, and the joint liability for repayment. The decision to waive the deposit of duty and penalty was based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the Commissioner's findings and the favorable aspects for the appellant in terms of limitation and lack of suppression evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of jurisdiction and merits in the upcoming hearing to ensure a fair and just resolution of the appeals.