2004 (2) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the applicant is required to deposit the amounts mentioned in the show cause notice before filing an appeal against the Commissioner (A)'s order.
2. Whether the Tribunal has inherent powers to stay the operation of the order of lower authorities under powers vested with it under Section 35F.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (A) under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Deputy Commissioner had dropped the demand of Rs. 90,00,334/- under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules and also penalty proceedings initiated against the applicant. The Commissioner (A) set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals filed by the revenue. The key issue was whether the applicant is required to deposit the amounts mentioned in the show cause notice before filing an appeal against the Commissioner (A)'s order. It was clarified that as per Section 35F, no amount by way of duty/penalty is confirmed against the appellant in the face of the Commissioner (A)'s order, hence no deposit is required.

2. The applicant sought relief against the Commissioner (A)'s order through an application for stay of its operation, as it would adversely affect them. The Tribunal has inherent powers to stay the operation of lower authorities' orders under Section 35F. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's right to seek relief through the application and directed the registry to post the application for stay of operation of the Commissioner (A)'s order. No arguments on the merits of the application were taken up at this stage, indicating that the focus was on the procedural aspects of seeking a stay.

This judgment clarifies the procedural requirements and the Tribunal's powers regarding the deposit of amounts mentioned in a show cause notice before filing an appeal, as well as the Tribunal's authority to stay the operation of lower authorities' orders under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The decision emphasizes the importance of understanding the statutory provisions and the Tribunal's inherent powers in dealing with appeals and applications for stay of operation.