2011 (3) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - default to pay fortnightly/ monthly duty in time - whether the appellants have subsequently paid the duty out of PLA or not - If they paid the duty out of PLA the duty already reversed modvat credit would again be credit to their modvat account - In such cases Tribunal in a number of matters has held that the penalty to be imposed is under the provisions of Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules which attracts maximum of Rs. 5000/-. Reference in this regard can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd vs. CCE Rajkot (2008 -TMI - 90327 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) - the appellants submits that the duty already stands paid by them from PLA. However he has not been able to substantiate the above claim - matter remanded back for fresh decision on the stay petitions after verifying the appellant s claim of payment of duty from PLA and in the light of the law declared in the above referred cases in respect of penalties.

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with stay order leading to dismissal of appeals, failure to pay duty resulting in penalty imposition, verification of duty payment from PLA, remand for fresh decision on stay petitions.

Analysis:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHEMDABAD involved multiple issues. Firstly, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed all three appeals due to non-compliance with the stay order, which required the appellants to deposit specific amounts in different cases. The learned advocate for the appellants argued that they defaulted in paying duty on time, leading to proceedings against them. This non-compliance forced them to clear goods by paying duty on a consignment basis out of PLA.

Secondly, the Tribunal considered whether the appellants subsequently paid the duty from PLA or not. If the duty was paid from PLA, the reversed modvat credit would be credited back to their modvat account. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to determine the penalty to be imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, which has a maximum penalty of Rs. 5000. Notably, the Tribunal cited specific cases like M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd vs. CCE Rajkot and Shaligram Laminators Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE Ahmd to support this position.

Furthermore, the learned consultant for the appellants claimed that the duty was already paid from PLA, but failed to provide substantiation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the stay petitions. This fresh decision would involve verifying the appellant's claim of duty payment from PLA and considering the legal precedents mentioned earlier regarding penalties. Once the stay petitions are decided, the appeals would be disposed of accordingly by the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of non-compliance with the stay order, duty payment leading to penalty imposition, verification of duty payment from PLA, and the remand for a fresh decision on stay petitions. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure proper verification of facts and adherence to legal provisions before reaching a final decision on the appeals.