2011 (3) TMI 60 - AT - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - Demand - Penalty - In Para 25 of the impugned order, it is discussed the evidence of non-movement of scrap as could be seen from the information from the DCTO, in-charge of integrated check post at Bheemunivaripalem, Tada Mandal, Nellore Dist. and it proves beyond doubt that the trucks never traveled and the material did not come to factory - the amount already deposited by the appellant is sufficient to hear and dispose off the appeal by the learned Commissioner (A) - he stay applications and appeals are disposed of by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Stay petitions for pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit demand, penalty under Section 11AC, and personal penalty on an individual. Reconsideration of evidence, findings, and order by Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (A). Sufficiency of findings by Commissioner (A) and requirement of remand for further consideration.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal considered stay petitions for pre-deposit of amounts involving Cenvat Credit demand, penalty under Section 11AC, and a personal penalty on an individual. The Tribunal observed that the matter was in the second round of litigation, with the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (A) upholding the demand despite detailed evidence challenging the findings. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (A) did not provide sufficient reasons for his conclusion, emphasizing the need for a more thorough examination of the evidence. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (A) for reconsideration, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and setting a three-month timeline for disposal. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on the case's merits but directed that the appellant's existing deposit would suffice for the appeal's continuation without seeking a refund.

The Commissioner (A) was found to have upheld the Order-in-Original without providing detailed reasons for the decision. The Tribunal highlighted the insufficiency of the Commissioner (A)'s reasoning and deferred a thorough examination of the voluminous evidence to the Commissioner (A). The Tribunal deemed it appropriate for the Commissioner (A) to reevaluate the issue afresh, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also clarified that the appellant's existing deposit was adequate for the appeal's continuation, thereby avoiding the need for additional pre-deposit. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter aimed to ensure a comprehensive reconsideration of the case within a specified timeframe, maintaining fairness and procedural integrity in the adjudicative process.