2006 (12) TMI 374 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application for the order in appeal dated 31st July 2006 by the Commissioner.
2. Compliance of the High Court order by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Re-quantification of interest payable to the respondent.
4. Direction for re-quantification by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Dismissal of the stay application as misconceived.

Analysis:

1. The case involves a stay application by the Revenue for the order in appeal dated 31st July 2006 by the Commissioner, which was deemed not maintainable as the Assistant Commissioner's order was in compliance with the High Court's directive. The High Court had instructed the Assistant Commissioner to pass a fresh order in line with their judgment in a specific case, subject to the outcome of a pending S.L.P. in the Supreme Court.

2. The Assistant Commissioner subsequently sanctioned an amount as interest payable to the respondent based on the High Court's order. The Assistant Commissioner's order allowed for re-quantification of the amount payable to the respondent if the department succeeded in the Supreme Court, indicating a clear intention to adjust the amount based on the final decision.

3. The authorized representative for the department pointed out that the Supreme Court, in a related case, directed payment of interest based on a draft circular appended to the order. This direction necessitated the re-quantification of interest in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, indicating the ongoing process of adjusting the amount payable to the respondent.

4. The adjudication order itself anticipated re-quantification of the amount payable to the respondent and the recovery of any excess amount based on the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, the need for a stay of the Commissioner's order was deemed unnecessary as the re-quantification process would align with the Supreme Court's decision, dismissing the application as misconceived.

5. The Tribunal concluded that since the re-quantification process was to be carried out according to the Supreme Court's decision, there was no basis for seeking a stay of the Commissioner's order. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing in its due course, emphasizing the dismissal of the stay application due to its misconceived nature.