2011 (11) TMI 643 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - all aspects not considered - principles of natural justice - Held that - The Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating the effect of the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner before it and that the prayer for dispensing with the requirement of predeposit need to be examined afresh by the tribunal after considering the judgments which have been noted above and other judgments if any cited before tribunal in the course of arguments - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting waiver of pre-deposit in excise appeal.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenges an order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit in Excise Appeal No.486/2010. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing automobile parts and job work, received operational expenses as liquidated damages due to the principal's failure to lift the agreed quantity of goods. The Commissioner considered this amount as additional consideration, leading to the appeal and stay application before the CESTAT. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount within eight weeks, prompting the challenge in this Writ Petition.

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in considering the operational compensation as part of the goods' price without taking into account relevant judgments and the consistent tribunal view. Various judgments were cited to support the contention that the compensation was not part of the assessable value. On the other hand, the respondents supported the Tribunal's decision, claiming no error in its view.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court delved into multiple judgments cited by the petitioner, such as Spring Fresh Drinks, Collector Vs. Spring Fresh Drinks, CCE Vs. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd, among others. These judgments supported the petitioner's argument that the operational compensation should not be treated as part of the goods' price. Additionally, judgments like Mehsana Dist. Co.Op.Milk P.U. Ltd and Kinetic Honda Motors Ltd emphasized the need for the Tribunal to evaluate if pre-deposit directions cause undue hardship.

The Court noted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the effect of the judgment cited by the petitioner, specifically the Jindal Praxair case, which clarified the nature of NTOP charges. Moreover, the Tribunal did not address the possibility of partial waiver, indicating an oversight in its decision-making process. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to reexamine the petitioner's application for stay or dispensing with pre-deposit, considering the cited judgments and any additional arguments presented during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of without costs, highlighting the importance of a thorough reconsideration by the Tribunal in light of the legal principles and judgments discussed during the case.