2012 (7) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Stay petition - waiver of pre-deposit along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty - belated filing of the appeal - amounts have been confirmed on the ground that the appellant is required to assess the captively consumed goods on the basis of CAS-4 while the appellant is assessing the same on the basis of the goods sold to independent buyers Held that - Issue in which the appellant is already in contest and before the higher fora, the delay should have been condoned -Matter remanded back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Dismissal of appeal by first appellate authority on the ground of limitation.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Remand of the matter back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration.

Analysis:
1. The stay petition was filed seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.2,21,134. The amounts were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority due to the appellant's failure to assess captively consumed goods based on CAS-4, instead of assessing them on the basis of goods sold to independent buyers.

2. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of belated filing. However, the appellate tribunal noted that a previous unconditional stay had been granted to the same assessee on an identical issue, indicating a discrepancy in treatment. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the stay petition and decided to take up the appeal for disposal.

3. Upon reviewing the submissions made by both parties, the tribunal found that the appeal was belatedly filed by 29 days. The first appellate authority had not condoned the delay, citing lack of a justifiable reason. However, the tribunal deemed the justification provided by the appellant acceptable, as the officer had mistakenly presumed the limitation period as three months. Therefore, the tribunal decided to condone the delay and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration on the merits of the case.

4. The tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case and left all issues open for the first appellate authority to decide. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating that the matter was to be reconsidered by the first appellate authority following the principles of natural justice.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the appellate tribunal, the reasons for their decisions, and the subsequent actions to be taken in the legal proceedings.