2013 (2) TMI 515 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - DTA clearances of the EOU - Interest on duty u/s 11AB - Penalty u/s 11AC Penalty under Rule 25 - Penalties on the Managing Director and another Director Penalty under Rule 26 - Appellate authority dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35 F Held that - On the basis of decision in earlier case the total amount of duty demanded from the assessee is Rs. 29,32,036/-, towards which an amount of Rs.11,79,922/- paid by them stands appropriated. The Commissioner (Appeals) only required them to pre-deposit an amount of Rs 3.75 lakhs, which they did not deposit. Had they deposited this amount, their total payments would have amounted to a little over 50% of the demand only. Following our stay order dated 30/11/2011 ibid, we therefore direct the company to pre-deposit the above amount of Rs.3.75 lakhs and pre-deposit should be waived in respect of the Managing Director and Director of the Company.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery sought by appellants; Confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties by original authority; Dismissal of appeals by appellate authority for non-compliance with predeposit requirement; Similarity with earlier case of the same assessee; Direction to predeposit 50% of the duty amount; Requirement of predeposit by Commissioner (Appeals); Appellate Tribunal's decision on predeposit and waiver for Managing Director and Director of the Company.

Analysis:

The judgment involves the issue of waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellants, who were aggrieved by the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties by the original authority. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with the predeposit requirement set forth under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, without considering the case on merits. The present appeals challenge this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (para 2).

Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the similarity with an earlier case involving the same assessee, where predeposit was directed but not made, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal reviewed the stay order from the previous case, which directed predeposit of 50% of the duty amount. It was noted that the instant case shared similarities with the earlier one (para 3).

Regarding the total duty demanded from the assessee, a partial payment had been made, and the Commissioner (Appeals) required a specific amount for predeposit, which the company failed to deposit within the stipulated time. In line with the stay order from the previous case, the Tribunal directed the company to predeposit the specified amount within a set timeframe, after which the appeal would be disposed of on merits without further predeposit requirements. However, in the case of the Managing Director and Director of the Company, the Tribunal decided to waive the predeposit requirement and allow their appeals to be disposed of on merits without insisting on predeposit (para 4).

Conclusively, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, and the stay applications were also disposed of. The Tribunal emphasized providing all appellants with a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the proceedings (para 5).