2012 (7) TMI 510 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of duty - SCN was issued to the appellant demanding duty with interest and for imposition of penalty on the basis of electric consumption of their rolling mill - Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit whole of the duty amount Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits and now the applicant undertook to deposit 25% of the duty confirmed for hearing of the appeal, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty; Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act; Tribunal's decision on deposit amount for hearing the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs 15,01,921. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the Revenue based on alleged discrepancies in electric consumption at the rolling mill. The Revenue contended that the appellant was showing inflated electricity consumption to suppress actual production.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount within 15 days for the appeal hearing. However, the appellant failed to comply with this condition, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal noted a previous stay order in the appellant's favor, requiring a 25% duty deposit for appeal hearing based on a High Court decision.

3. The Tribunal found that since the Commissioner (Appeals) had not yet decided the appeal on merits and the appellant agreed to deposit 25% of the confirmed duty amount, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a merit-based decision upon the appellant's deposit and providing an opportunity for further representation.

4. Consequently, the appeal was allowed through remand, emphasizing the importance of complying with deposit requirements for appeal hearings. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of following legal procedures and fulfilling financial obligations to ensure a fair and just adjudication process.