2010 (6) TMI 347 - AT - Central Excise

Stay order waiver of pre-deposit modification of stay order - appellants have mis-represented the facts relating to the deposit of the amount - appellants submits, Department is correct and the mistake has occurred due to similarity of figures in two disputes - considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and considering the fact that an amount of Rs. 1,22,187/- stands deposited on 12-6-2010, the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty of Rs. 884/-, interest involved and penalty are waived

Summary

Issues: Modification of stay order based on misrepresentation of facts regarding deposit amount.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, the issue at hand was the modification of a stay order due to the misrepresentation of facts regarding a deposit amount. The Department filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the Stay Order dated 4-2-2009, which had waived the pre-deposit of penalty equal to duty pending the appeal. The modification was requested on the grounds that the appellants had misrepresented the facts related to the deposit of Rs. 1,22,187/-. This amount had been deposited and appropriated in a previous proceeding arising from a show cause notice dated 19-4-2006, leading to subsequent orders. The current case stemmed from a show cause notice dated 27-12-2004, resulting in orders dated 28-11-06 and 23-9-08, with a disputed amount of Rs. 1,22,791/-. The appellants acknowledged the mistake due to the similarity of figures in both disputes and expressed regret. They deposited Rs. 1,22,187/- on 12-6-2010, seeking acceptance of this payment as pre-deposit and requesting a waiver of the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty.

The Tribunal noted the incorrect presentation of facts by the appellants on 4-2-09 and the Department's failure to contest these facts. Despite this, considering the deposit of Rs. 1,22,187/- on 12-6-2010, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty. The recovery of these amounts was stayed pending the disposal of the present appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate presentation of facts and the consequences of misrepresentation in legal proceedings.