2012 (9) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise

Stay Petition is filed for waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - As the issue needs detailed appreciation of the evidences and the grounds of appeal, taken by the appellant before first appellate authority the appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.3.30 lakhs during the proceedings before the lower authorities along with interest and 25% of the amount towards penalty the appellant should be put to some condition in order to hear and dispose the appeal, thus directed accordingly to deposit an amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from date of order.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of amount confirmed as ineligible CENVAT Credit, duty liability on clandestine removal of goods, non-compliance leading to dismissal of appeal by first appellate authority, evidence of inputs not received by the appellant, need for detailed appreciation of evidence and grounds of appeal, direction for deposit of specific amount by the appellant.

Analysis:
The Stay Petition was filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the amount confirmed by the adjudicating authority as ineligible CENVAT Credit availed, including duty liability on clandestine removal of goods, with interest and penalties imposed on the appellant. The first appellate authority directed the appellant to deposit the entire duty liability amount and Rs.5 lakhs towards penalty, which the appellant failed to comply with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. The appellant's counsel argued that they had cleared the inputs and prepared invoices, supported by documents annexed in the appeal memoranda, indicating receipt of inputs through debit notes and clearances based on documents discharging duty liability. The appellant had already deposited Rs.3.30 lakhs towards confirmed liability on clandestine removal, interest, and 25% penalty. The Revenue contended that the appellant's proprietor's statement of non-receipt of inputs and statements from transporters and drivers contradicted the appellant's claims.

The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely for non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of the Stay Petition and consideration of the appeal itself for disposal. Upon reviewing submissions and records, the Tribunal observed that the appellant presented evidence, such as debit notes for quality dispute, regarding the inputs allegedly not received. However, due to the lack of findings on the merits of the case from the first appellate authority, the Tribunal could not delve into the case's substance at that point. Considering the appellant's deposit of Rs.3.30 lakhs during lower authorities' proceedings, along with interest and 25% penalty, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to impose a condition for further proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.2.50 lakhs within eight weeks and report compliance to the first appellate authority by a specified date for the restoration of the appeal number and a conclusion on the case's merits following natural justice principles.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the direction for the appellant to make the specified deposit within the stipulated timeframe for further proceedings and a decision on the case's merits by the first appellate authority.