2012 (5) TMI 557 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Conversion of goods under EPCG scheme - Held that - Substantial relief has already been granted by the Tribunal. There is waiver of most of the liability at this stage and only rupees one crore has been ordered to be deposited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that case is pending before the B.I.F.R. However it is not disputed that the industry has not been declared sick so far, as such, we find that no case for interference is made out. Ten days time from today is granted to deposit the aforesaid amount, in case, the appeal has not been dismissed so far due to non-compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of deposit pending appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
2. Conversion from 100% Export Oriented Unit (E.O.U.) scheme to E.P.C.G. Scheme.
3. Demand of duty, interest, and penalty by Revenue.
4. Tribunal's order directing deposit of a specific amount and waiver of remaining dues.
5. Consideration of relief granted by the Tribunal and the petitioner's submission regarding the case pending before B.I.F.R.
6. Dismissal of the writ petition and grant of time for depositing the ordered amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of Terry Towels under the E.O.U. scheme, applied for conversion to the E.P.C.G. Scheme. The Revenue demanded duty amounting to &8377; 9,50,42,002/- along with interest and penalty on finished goods. The Tribunal granted substantial relief by ordering a deposit of one crore rupees and waiving the remaining dues pending appeal. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the relief, filed a writ petition challenging the order.

2. The Tribunal's order considered the detailed submissions and directed the deposit of a specific amount within eight weeks for the two appeals. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of remaining dues during the appeal's pendency. The High Court, after hearing the counsel and considering the reasons given by the Tribunal, found that significant relief had already been granted. The Court noted that the industry was not declared sick, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The petitioner was granted ten days to deposit the ordered amount, failing which the appeal could be dismissed.

3. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order and granting an extension of time for the deposit. The judgment emphasized the substantial relief already provided by the Tribunal and the lack of grounds for interference based on the industry's non-sick status. The petitioner's dissatisfaction with the waiver and deposit order was addressed through a detailed analysis of the Tribunal's decision and the legal basis for the relief granted.