2003 (8) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Compliance with pre-deposit order, interpretation of cash deposit, eligibility for credit as a DTA unit, consideration of compliance as modification.

Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order:
The appellants were directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs in cash and provide a Bank Guarantee. The appellants furnished a Bank Guarantee and made a debit entry in the Cenvat credit account. The Revenue sought a report on whether the Bank Guarantee and deposit could be considered as cash deposit. The Tribunal considered the compliance and referred to the decision in U.O.I. v. Vikrant Tyres Ltd., where payment by debit entry in RG 23A, Part-II was deemed as cash payment. The Tribunal also cited the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Siri Sri Plastics (P) Ltd., allowing debits for dues accrued outside the Modvat Scheme.

Interpretation of Cash Deposit:
The Tribunal referred to various decisions supporting the view that a debit entry in the credit account register would constitute payment in cash. The cases of Swil Limited and Birla Yamaha Ltd. were mentioned to reinforce this interpretation. It was concluded that the debit made in the Cenvat register in the present case could not be questioned as a cash payment.

Eligibility for Credit as a DTA Unit:
The Revenue contended that the appellants, being an EOU unit, were not entitled to credit during the period when the demands were determined. However, as the appellants subsequently obtained registration as a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit, the eligibility for credit was questioned. The Tribunal held that even with a new registration as a DTA unit, the appellants remained the same entity and could not be deprived of utilizing credit as per previous decisions.

Consideration of Compliance as Modification:
The appellants argued that the payment made should be accepted as a modification to the original order. Referring to the Karnataka High Court decision in Vikrant Tyres Ltd., it was asserted that approaching the Tribunal after making the entry did not amount to contempt. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and considered the credit made along with the executed bond as due compliance with the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed that the matter be listed for normal course proceedings since no application for expedited hearing was made. The judgment clarified the interpretation of cash deposits, eligibility for credit, and the compliance with the pre-deposit order, providing detailed analysis based on legal precedents and decisions.