2012 (6) TMI 3 - AT - Central Excise

Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit, interest thereof and penalty Revenue stated that the appellant had been unable to produce Project Authority Certificate (PAC) and also that the 2 PACs were having same number, hence duplication - Held that - On perusal of the papers produced by the assesse, indicate that PAC certificates were available with them today for justifying their claim of clearance and as regards duplication of the PAC number, the concerned Project authority has given a certificate giving the reasoning for duplication of same number - this kind of exercise of factual verification of PACs to the clearances made by the appellant needs to be done by the adjudicating authority so the matter needs to be re-considered in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 due to non-production of Project Authority Certificates (PACs) and alleged duplication.

Analysis:

The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as duty demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the amounts due to the appellant's failure to produce Project Authority Certificates (PACs) and the alleged duplication of PAC numbers. The issue was considered to be narrow, leading to the allowance of the Stay Petition and the appeal being taken up for disposal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the adjudicating authority had specifically listed the 4 PACs for which duty liability was confirmed, claiming that the certificates were available with them to justify the clearance of high-speed diesel without duty payment under Notification No.108/95-CE. Regarding the duplication of PAC numbers, the project authority provided a certificate explaining the situation. However, the papers supporting these claims were not produced before the authorities, as noted by the Senior Departmental Representative (SDR).

Upon careful consideration of submissions and perusal of the presented papers, the Tribunal found that factual verification of the PACs in relation to the clearances made by the appellant needed to be conducted by the adjudicating authority. The matter was deemed to require re-consideration by the adjudicating authority concerning the demands confirmed on the appellant. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.