2008 (10) TMI 566 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Commissioner's use of unsavory language in an order.
2. Apology submitted by the Commissioner.
3. Granting of waiver of pre-deposit in the appellant's case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Commissioner's use of unsavory language
The Commissioner was required to explain the use of unsavory remarks in an order, specifically the idiom "the tail wagging the dog." The Commissioner clarified that the idiom was used to convey a point to the appellant regarding the waiver of pre-deposit granted by the Tribunal. The Commissioner apologized for the language used, stating that there was no intention to belittle the Tribunal or its members. The Commissioner's explanation was accepted, and the matter was closed.

Issue 2: Apology submitted by the Commissioner
The JCDR representing the Commissioner submitted an apology on behalf of the Commissioner, stating that there was no intention to use unsavory remarks to demean the Tribunal or its members. The apology was accepted by the authorities, and it was acknowledged that unsavory language should not be used, regardless of intent. The matter was resolved upon accepting the apology.

Issue 3: Granting of waiver of pre-deposit in the appellant's case
The appellant sought a waiver of pre-deposit and linking of the appeal based on a previous stay order granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted the similarity of facts to a previous case where a waiver was granted. The Tribunal reproduced paragraphs from the previous stay order, highlighting the appellant's strong case regarding the duty demand and penalties imposed. Given the similarity in circumstances, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery until the appeal's disposal, linking it with another pending appeal for an expedited hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of unsavory language usage by the Commissioner, acceptance of the apology, and the granting of a waiver of pre-deposit in the appellant's case based on previous precedents and strong merits.