2010 (8) TMI 909 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products supplied to SEZ developer during the dispute period.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning duty demanded due to the denial of CENVAT credit and penalty. The Tribunal considered the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, where waiver and stay were granted in a similar factual scenario. Another case, Surya Roshni Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak, presented a different view, leading to a referral to a Larger Bench. Despite the differing opinions, the Tribunal in the current case followed the precedent of Surya Roshni, emphasizing that the issue was debatable. The Tribunal found the grant of waiver and stay appropriate, aligning with the principle that even when there is a prima facie view against the assessee, such relief can be provided. Therefore, based on the precedents and the debatable nature of the issue, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the duty and penalty amounts in question.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering precedents and the debatability of issues in granting waivers and stays in tax matters. It showcases the Tribunal's approach to balancing different views and ensuring fairness in decision-making. The reference to the Sujana Metal Products and Surya Roshni cases demonstrates the Tribunal's reliance on established legal principles and the need for consistency in similar cases. Ultimately, the decision to grant waiver and stay was based on the understanding that the issue at hand was subject to debate and required further examination, emphasizing the Tribunal's commitment to upholding justice and equity in tax disputes.