2010 (10) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Stay order pre-deposit of duty and penalty - application for vacating the stay interpretation of the stay order by the Superintendent in the above letter, written to the Assistant Commissioner and the averments made by the appellants that they are being harassed for recovery of interest amount, on the ground that interest does not stand specifically mentioned in the stay order, only reflects upon his knowledge of law. When the principle amount i.e. duty itself stands dispensed with by the Tribunal, it is not understood as to how the Revenue can recover the interest amount. We also note from the said application that the stay order passed by the Tribunal was extended from time to time till disposal of the appeals. Such an extension order was last passed on 14-6-2010. As such, no merits are found in the Revenue s prayer for vacation of stay order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early fixation of appeal on an out of turn basis requested by the Revenue due to the significant amount of duty involved.
2. Discrepancy regarding the stay order issued by the Tribunal concerning the deposit of interest amount and harassment by jurisdictional Central Excise authorities.
3. The Revenue's request for vacation of the stay order granted to the appellants.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Early Fixation of Appeal
The Revenue sought early fixation of the appeal on an out of turn basis due to the substantial duty amount of approximately Rs. 99 Lakhs involved. However, the Tribunal declined the request citing specific reasons. Despite meeting the criteria for out of turn basis, the application was rejected based on subsequent considerations outlined in the judgment.

Issue 2: Discrepancy Regarding Stay Order
The appellant highlighted a discrepancy in the stay order issued by the Tribunal concerning the deposit of interest amount. The appellant contended that the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities were pressuring them for the interest amount, claiming it was not covered in the stay order. The Tribunal noted the Superintendent's misinterpretation of the stay order and the harassment faced by the appellants for the interest recovery. The Tribunal emphasized that when the principal duty amount was dispensed with by the Tribunal, the recovery of interest by the Revenue was unwarranted.

Issue 3: Request for Vacation of Stay Order
The Revenue, in addition to seeking early hearing, also requested the vacation of the stay order. However, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to revoke the stay granted to the appellants. The Tribunal highlighted that the stay order had been extended until the appeals' disposal, with the latest extension granted on 14-6-2010. Given that the amount involved was less than Rs. one crore and the appellants had already deposited a significant sum towards duty and penalty, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's plea to vacate the stay order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the early hearing application, emphasizing that the appeals were likely to be listed in the near future, and there was no justification to prioritize them over other cases. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to the terms of the stay order and the inappropriateness of the Revenue's actions in pressuring for interest recovery not covered by the Tribunal's directives.