2013 (1) TMI 386 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of Pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Cenvat Credit on capital goods - HR coils HR plates, MS plates, channels, joists, angles, beams - The aforesaid structural items were claimed to have been used for fabricating/manufacturing chimney, pollution control equipment, material handling equipment and other items of machinery - Held that - We have not found any strong prima facie case for the assessee. Appellant is running through a financial crisis. Partly waive. Allow this appeal by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver and stay of adjudged dues including irregular CENVAT credit.
2. Rejection of appeal by appellate Commissioner due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
3. Lack of evidence for a strong prima facie case against the direction for pre-deposit.
4. Claim of financial crisis due to ongoing Telangana agitation.
5. Modification of pre-deposit amount and remand of the appeal for disposal on merits.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver and stay of adjudged dues, including irregular CENVAT credit. The duty of Rs.12,37,837/- was demanded against CENVAT credit taken on various items claimed to be capital goods. The Tribunal decided to finally dispose of the appeal after dispensing with pre-deposit, allowing the appeal to proceed.

2. The appeal was filed against the appellate Commissioner's order, which rejected the appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellate authority had directed pre-deposit of 50% of the confirmed amount, which was not done by the appellant. The rejection was based on the lack of evidence of pre-deposit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal did not find a strong prima facie case against the direction for pre-deposit. The appellant failed to substantiate the claim that the structural items were used for specific purposes like fabricating machinery. The Tribunal also noted the plea of financial crisis due to the Telangana agitation but did not find it sufficient to waive the pre-deposit entirely.

4. Considering the financial situation of the appellant, the Tribunal modified the pre-deposit amount to Rs. 2,50,000/- and granted six weeks for compliance. The appeal was remanded for disposal on merits by the appellate authority, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with the modified pre-deposit amount and instructed the appellant to report compliance within the specified time frame. The stay application was disposed of, and the appeal was directed to be considered on its merits by the appellate authority in accordance with the law.