2011 (10) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - show-cause notice dt. 25.6.2009 in respect of the exports of goods under bond which were lying in stock on 15.8.2008 when the applicants started availing benefit of notification No. 30/2004 and during the month of October only in certain goods on payment of duty - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE.
3. Consideration of applicant's contentions in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.2,18,52,450. The applicant provided an affidavit stating that a certain amount had already been granted in respect of rebate claims and adjusted against the current departmental demand. The Tribunal noted that the duty amount had already been recovered by the Revenue, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalties for the appeal hearing. The stay petition was allowed based on these grounds.

2. The dispute arose from the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The appellant contended that the demand was confirmed by not considering the fact that they had stopped availing the benefit of input credit from a certain date and had only manufactured certain goods by availing Cenvat credit on inputs. The Tribunal observed that the contentions raised by the appellant were not adequately considered in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication by the authority, emphasizing the need to verify the facts and provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

3. The Commissioner (A.R.) argued that the appellant had violated the conditions of the notification by availing credit for inputs used in manufacturing final products cleared under the notification's benefit. However, the Tribunal found that the specific contentions raised by the appellant were not properly addressed in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it necessary for the adjudicating authority to reconsider the case, allowing the appellant an opportunity to present their case and have the issue decided afresh in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for remand, with directions for further proceedings before the adjudicating authority.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering all relevant facts and contentions raised by the parties involved in a dispute, ensuring a fair and thorough adjudication process in line with the applicable legal provisions and notifications.