2013 (1) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Ineligible cenvat credit - claimed credit on same products doubly - rejection of appeal for non compliance of the stay order - non payment of pre-deposit of Rs. Two lakhs towards penalty - Held that - The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the case of Aries Dyechem Industries vs. CCE, Ahmd.(2010 (1) TMI 421 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) and submits that the first appellate authority has not recorded any finding on the merits of the case. The appellant has already reversed the entire amount of ineligible cenvat credit of Rs. 19,53,307/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority under protest. Thus the FAA should have considered this amount as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal - set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to FAA to take up the appeal for disposal on merits, without insisting on any further pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit under Central Excise Act, 1944

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved a stay petition filed for the waiver of pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant sought the waiver of Rs. 19,59,501/- confirmed as duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The amounts were confirmed as ineligible cenvat credit availed doubly on the same products, leading to interest and penalties being imposed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal could be disposed of as the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the stay order for pre-deposit of Rs. Two lakhs towards penalty. The Tribunal allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit and decided to take up the appeal for disposal. The appellant had reversed the entire amount of ineligible cenvat credit confirmed by the adjudicating authority under protest, which the Tribunal considered as a sufficient deposit to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits.

The appellant argued that the issue in the case was covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal and that the first appellate authority had not given any finding on the merits of the case. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant and held that the amount reversed by the appellant should be considered enough to dispose of the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority to restore the appeal to its original number and proceed with the disposal on merits without requiring any further pre-deposit.

The Tribunal directed the first appellate authority to follow the principles of natural justice before reaching any conclusion. The stay petition was disposed of, and the appeal was to be considered for disposal on its merits without insisting on any additional pre-deposit.