2011 (7) TMI 24 - HC - Central Excise

Application of stay - waiver of pre-deposit - It is an admitted case that both the appellants are engaged in printing and lamination of polyester film with metalized film/polyester film - show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking the appellants to reverse the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 25,59,857/- and Rs. 14,11,216 respectively - It is pointed out that the excise duty paid by the appellants is much more than the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant - It is pointed out that Cenvat credit was not claimed or paid to the appellant in cash but was utilized in payment of excise duty only - Decided in the favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay applications filed by the appellants before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding deposit of demanded amount.
2. Validity of interim directions issued by the CESTAT for depositing 60% of the demanded amount within a specified period.
3. Appellants' entitlement to Cenvat credit on inputs for manufacturing activities involving printing and lamination of polyester film with metalized film/polyester film.

Issue 1: Stay Applications before CESTAT
The appellants filed stay applications before the CESTAT challenging the order directing them to deposit 60% of the demanded amount within eight weeks. The appellants argued that the process in question should not be considered a manufacturing process, questioning their obligation to pay excise duty and reversing Cenvat credit. The CESTAT's interim directions were challenged in these applications.

Issue 2: Validity of Interim Directions
The High Court considered the validity of the CESTAT's interim directions, noting that the appellants' excise duty payments exceeded the Cenvat credit availed. The Court found merit in the appellants' argument that if the process was not manufacturing, they should not be required to pay excise duty. It was highlighted that the Cenvat credit was utilized only for excise duty payment, not claimed in cash, indicating a prima facie case against the pre-deposit condition imposed by the CESTAT.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Cenvat Credit
The appellants contended that their activity of printing and lamination constituted manufacturing, justifying their entitlement to Cenvat credit on inputs. Show cause notices were issued to reverse the Cenvat credit, leading to appeals before the CESTAT. The High Court agreed with the appellants, setting aside the CESTAT's directions and allowing the appeals to proceed without the pre-deposit condition.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the appellants should not be burdened with pre-deposit requirements based on the facts presented. The judgment focused on the appellants' entitlement to Cenvat credit for their manufacturing activities and the validity of the CESTAT's interim directions, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants and setting aside the deposit conditions imposed by the CESTAT.