2014 (4) TMI 1090 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of stay order of the tribunal - tribunal asked the petitioner of make pre-deposit of 25% without considering the prima facie case - Canvat Credit - credit of duty paid on angles, channels, etc. - denial of credit since they were neither defined as capital goods under rule nor as inputs under rule of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - In the instant case, as observed above, the learned Tribunal has recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but not given its findings thereon. Furthermore the impugned order does not disclose why the petitioner was required to deposit only 25%. The learned Tribunal could have waived pre-deposit of disputed duty or penalty in part if it were satisfied that the deposit of the entire duty or penalty would cause financial hardship but not partial deposit or alternatively if the Tribunal were of the prima facie view that the disputed duty and/or penalty might only be partly sustainable. In the instant case the impugned order does not indicate how much of the disputed duty is prima facie sustainable, and how much is not. The impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall consider the question of waiver of pre-deposit a fresh in accordance with law - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Rejection of petitioner's contentions and confirmation of duty demand.
3. Tribunal's order on pre-deposit and financial hardship.
4. Legal principles on waiver of pre-deposit and undue hardship.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice by Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and selling iron and steel products, procured various raw materials for fabricating components and parts. The petitioner consumed 37,970 MT of structural steel but availed credit of Excise duty for only 3,349 MT. A show cause notice was issued alleging contravention of Rules 4 and 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, by availing credit on materials not defined as capital goods or inputs under the rules. The petitioner was also accused of not showing such availment in monthly returns from April 2006 to July 2008.

2. Rejection of Petitioner's Contentions and Confirmation of Duty Demand:
The petitioner responded to the show cause notice and was granted a personal hearing. However, by an Order-in-Original dated December 31, 2009, the respondent rejected the petitioner's contentions, confirmed the allegations, and imposed a penalty equivalent to the duty demand.

3. Tribunal's Order on Pre-deposit and Financial Hardship:
The petitioner appealed to the Central Excise, Service Tax Tribunal and sought waiver of pre-deposit and penalty. The Tribunal, without considering the prima facie case, directed the petitioner to pre-deposit 25% of the duty demand, amounting to Rs. 6.2 crores, within 8 weeks. The Tribunal also rejected the petitioner's claim of financial hardship, stating it was unsubstantiated.

4. Legal Principles on Waiver of Pre-deposit and Undue Hardship:
The judgment emphasized that while considering waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal must consider the prima facie merits of the case and the financial capacity of the appellant. It was noted that a strong prima facie case could warrant waiver of pre-deposit, even if the appellant had the financial capacity. The judgment cited various precedents, including Ruby Rubber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, and others, establishing that pre-deposit should be waived if it causes undue hardship.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice by Tribunal:
The Tribunal's order was criticized for being non-speaking and lacking reasons for directing a lump sum deposit of 25% of the duty demand. It was held that such orders violate principles of natural justice. The judgment referenced cases like Farmania Steel Works v. Union of India and Amitava Saha v. CESTAT, which underscored the necessity of reasoned orders in pre-deposit matters.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the waiver of pre-deposit afresh, taking into account the prima facie case and financial capacity of the petitioner. The Tribunal was instructed to safeguard the interests of revenue while considering the waiver. The petitioner was restrained from transferring or alienating its assets, except for the sale of finished goods in the ordinary course of business, until the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was to be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within 8 weeks.