2013 (1) TMI 52 - AT - Central Excise

Stay petitions against the waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - the issue involved in this case is regarding clearances of Submersible Water Pumps without BIS certificates. As the main appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs as against the duty demand of Rs. 10,28,274/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority, thus Revenue s interest is secured when almost 50% of the amount of duty liability involved has been deposited by main appellant. Set-aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh, without further insisting on any pre-deposit from any of the appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Stay petitions against waiver of pre-deposit; Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance; Issue of clearances of Submersible Water Pumps without BIS certificates; Deposit of duty demand; Remittal of the matter to the first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ., pertains to stay petitions filed against the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed as demand of duty, interest, and penalties. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal noted that since the first appellate authority did not address the merits of the case, they were unable to delve into the substantive issues. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to take up the appeals for disposal after addressing the stay petitions filed by the assessees.

Upon reviewing the record, the Tribunal identified the central issue concerning the clearances of Submersible Water Pumps without BIS certificates. It was observed that the main appellant had deposited Rs. 5 Lakhs against the duty demand of Rs. 10,28,274/-, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority had directed the main appellant to deposit the entire duty liability amount and 50% of the penalty, with similar directions for other appellants. The Tribunal acknowledged that the interest of the Revenue was safeguarded as nearly 50% of the duty liability had been deposited by the main appellant.

Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the first appellate authority for a fresh consideration without necessitating any further pre-deposit from the appellants. It was emphasized that the first appellate authority must adhere to the principles of natural justice before reaching any conclusion. The appellants were also instructed to cooperate with the authorities during any required personal hearings. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair and thorough reconsideration of the case by the first appellate authority.