2011 (3) TMI 1089 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - pre-deposit - Held that - As the appellant has already deposited more than 50% of the duty confirmed against them. By treating the same as sufficient for the purposes of Section 35F, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty imposed upon all the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with stay order and reduction of penalties.
2. Confirmation of duty against M/s Falcon Submersibles Pvt. Ltd. and imposition of penalties on directors and partners.
3. Argument regarding sufficiency of deposit made by M/s Falcon Submersibles Pvt. Ltd. for Section 35F purposes.
4. Decision on the issue of pre-deposit and penalty imposition.
5. Setting aside of the impugned order and remand for decision on merit.
6. Remanding appeals of transporters linked with M/s Falcon Submersibles Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the dismissal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the stay order and the reduction of penalties. The Commissioner had decided some appeals on merit while reducing penalties for certain appellants, including transporters.

2. It was found that a duty of Rs.42,03,981/- was confirmed against M/s Falcon Submersibles Pvt. Ltd. for clandestine manufacture and removal of submersible pumps. Penalties were imposed on directors, partners, and managing directors of the company. The appeals of these individuals were dismissed for not complying with the stay order.

3. The advocate for M/s Falcon Submersibles Pvt. Ltd. argued that they had already deposited a substantial amount, more than 50% of the confirmed duty, and thus, the further deposit directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unwarranted under Section 35F.

4. The Tribunal considered the contentious issue of pre-deposit and penalty imposition. It noted that M/s Falcon Submersibles Pvt. Ltd. had deposited over 50% of the confirmed duty, leading to the dispensation of the requirement for further pre-deposit and the penalty imposed on all appellants.

5. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the appeals on merit, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the appeals for a decision on merit without the need for additional pre-deposit.

6. Additionally, the appeals of transporters, which were linked to M/s Falcon Submersibles Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal, were also required to be remanded for further consideration, as they were inter-linked with the main appeal.

In conclusion, all the appeals were remanded, and the stay petitions were disposed of, providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues addressed in the judgment.