2012 (6) TMI 498 - AT - Customs

Application for waiver of pre - deposit of duties and penalties - Held that - Following the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the appellants own case and after waiving the requirement of pre deposit, the matter is remanded to Ld. Commissioner to decide the case afresh as the assessee have only made a claim for benefit of Notification but have not produced any evidence in support of their claim satisfying the condition of the Notification.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of duties and penalties, disposal of appeal, remand of the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision, lack of evidence for benefit of Notification, liberty to submit documents, reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Waiver of Predeposit of Duties and Penalties:
The applicants sought waiver of predeposit of substantial amounts of duties and penalties. The applicants, being Public Sector Undertakings, argued that their COD application was pending before the Committee of Secretaries when the decision in the case of ECIL Vs. Union of India-2011 was pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to waive the requirement of predeposit and proceed with the disposal of the appeals with the consent of both parties.

Disposal of Appeal:
The Tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of at that stage after waiving the predeposit requirement. The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the ld. Advocate for the appellants regarding the remand of a previous matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision. With the consent of both parties, the appeals were taken up for disposal after waiving the predeposit requirement.

Remand of the Matter to the Commissioner for Fresh Decision:
The ld. Advocate for the appellants referred to a previous Tribunal decision where the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision. The Department's contention was that the appellants had only claimed the benefit of a Notification without providing evidence satisfying the Notification's conditions. Following the Tribunal's decision in the appellants' own case and waiving the predeposit requirement, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, allowing both sides to submit documents and have a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Lack of Evidence for Benefit of Notification:
The Department argued that the appellants had not produced evidence supporting their claim for the benefit of a Notification, failing to satisfy the Notification's conditions. This lack of evidence was a key point raised by the Department in the proceedings.

Liberty to Submit Documents and Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing:
In remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, the Tribunal made it clear that all issues were kept open, allowing both parties to submit documents in support of their positions. It was emphasized that a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided to both sides during the proceedings. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand, with stay petitions also being disposed of accordingly.