2013 (2) TMI 389 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No.8/2003-CEN - Non-compliance of pre-deposit orders - Held that - Unable to go into the merits of the case as the first appellate authority has not decided the issue on merit but has dismissed the same only for non-compliance. since the issue is of interpretation of notification involved, the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs deposited by the main appellant during the pendency of the proceedings should be enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal - set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to first appellate authority to reconsider the appeal without insisting for further deposit from the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by first appellate authority for non-compliance of pre-deposit.
2. Interpretation of Notification No.8/2003-CE regarding BIS certification for submersible pump sets.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The appellants had failed to comply with the pre-deposit order of 100% duty liability and 50% penalty imposed on the main appellant and its partner. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority did not decide the issue on merit but solely on non-compliance grounds. The appellants had deposited Rs.2.50 lakhs during the pendency of the issue, arguing that the issue revolved around the benefit of Notification No.8/2003-CE for their product, submersible pump sets.

2. The legal representatives presented arguments regarding the BIS certification requirement under the notification. They contended that the adjudicating authority's rejection was based on the absence of a BIS certificate, which the appellants later produced. The appellants argued that the notification only mandated conformity to BIS specifications, not explicit certification. The Revenue, however, cited a Board circular stipulating that from a certain date, goods must conform to BIS standards for exemption. Despite these arguments, the Tribunal refrained from delving into the merits of the case due to the first appellate authority's non-merit-based dismissal. The Tribunal considered the deposited amount sufficient for hearing and disposal of the appeal, emphasizing the issue's interpretation of the notification.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority for reconsideration without demanding further deposits. The appeals were directed to be reconsidered on merit, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting the notification accurately and providing a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD encapsulates the issues of appeal dismissal for non-compliance and the interpretation of Notification No.8/2003-CE concerning BIS certification, offering a detailed insight into the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision-making process.