Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2011 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2011 (10) TMI 445 - HC - Central Excise


Issues involved:
- Appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act 1944.
- Determination of duty demand, penalty, and waiver of pre-deposit based on actual production and Annual Capacity of Production (ACP).
- Tribunal's decision on withdrawal of appeals, remand orders, and pre-deposit amount determination.
- Arguments regarding jurisdiction under Section 3A, statutory provisions, and Tribunal's modification of pre-deposit amount.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of M.S. ingots, appealed against the CESTAT order directing a deposit of Rs. 2.11 Crores under Section 35-F, challenging the justification for the deposit and lack of prima facie case for total waiver.
2. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 2.21 Crores with an abatement of Rs. 2 Crores and imposed a penalty under Rule 96ZO(1). The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit, contending the actual production was higher than determined ACP.
3. The Tribunal noted withdrawal of appeals related to ACP determination but remanded others for reconsideration. The appellant argued for redetermination based on actual production and challenged the invocation of Section 3A post its deletion by Finance Act 2001.
4. The Tribunal determined a pre-deposit amount considering net duty demand, abatement, and withdrawal of appeals, leading to a deposit of Rs. 2.11 Crores with a partial waiver.
5. The Court modified the Tribunal's order, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 75 lacs within four weeks, considering the submissions made and the need for justice without continuous remands, keeping all rights and contentions in the main appeal open.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the issues of duty demand, penalty, and pre-deposit waiver based on ACP and actual production, highlighting the appellant's arguments on jurisdiction and statutory provisions. The Court modified the pre-deposit amount, balancing the interests of justice and revenue entitlement, ensuring a fair consideration of submissions during the appeal hearing.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates