2011 (6) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Since appellants defaulted in payment of dues for more than 30 days and the appellants have not complied with the provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, the clearances were treated as clearances without payment of duty - The lower authorities confirmed demand, imposed penalty and charged interest - The appellants pleaded that there was no fault on their part and the duty was paid through cenvat account - The default was only for seven days and the differential duty was also paid within the time allowed - Held that it is found that Commissioner (Appeal) has not given any findings on the contentions raised by the appellants when the appellants have clearly come out with the details of payments of duty, which are verifiable facts - Hence, set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for further verification of the details of payments and to decide the appeal on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-payment of Central Excise duty within the stipulated time period.
2. Appellants' plea for dispensation with the pre-deposit condition.
3. Lack of findings by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the contentions raised by the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The case involved M/s. Shreeji Foundry, Rajkot, who failed to pay the Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,86,521/- on goods cleared before 05.01.2008. Despite partial payments made on different dates, the appellants defaulted in payment for over 30 days, leading to the clearances being treated as without payment of duty. The lower authorities confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and charged interest. The Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants.

2. In response, Shreeji Foundry filed a stay petition arguing that they were not at fault as the duty was paid through the cenvat account, and any default was only for seven days, with the differential duty paid within the allowed time. They requested dispensation from pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty based on these grounds.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeal) did not provide specific findings on the appellants' contentions, despite the verifiable facts presented by the appellants regarding the duty payments. The Tribunal concluded that a detailed verification of the facts was necessary, directing the appellants to pay 50% of the duty through PLA within eight weeks, with the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and interest upon compliance.

4. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for further verification of payment details and a decision on the appeal's merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the facts presented by the appellants before reaching a final decision.