2013 (5) TMI 628 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal u/s 35-G Waiver - Predeposit of duty - Order was passed relying upon an order of the CCE, Allahabad vs. Ramesh Food Products, 2 004 (11) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Held that - In assesse s own case, the judgment of the Supreme Court has been examined by the Tribunal in respect of subsequent period and the claim of the Revenue in Ramesh Food Products case (supra), has been found to be unsustainable, Tribunal was not right in relying upon the decision in Ramesh Food Products case (supra) when the same has been explained by the Tribunal in assesse s own case. In favour of assesse. Order is set aside and remitted back to the Tribunal.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of reliance on a Supreme Court decision in the context of a different notification.
2. Application of waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on Tribunal's order.
3. Examination of duty payment on pharmaceutical products under different brand names.
4. Consideration of previous judgments in the appellant's own case.
5. Correctness of Tribunal's decision in relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment.

Interpretation of reliance on a Supreme Court decision in the context of a different notification:
The High Court considered whether the Tribunal was correct in relying on a Supreme Court decision related to a different notification. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment was misplaced as it had already been distinguished by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case for an earlier period. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in relying on the Supreme Court decision without considering the distinctions made in the appellant's case. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision.

Application of waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on Tribunal's order:
The appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arose from an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit a specific amount as pre-deposit of duty. The appellant contested this order, questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's reliance on a Supreme Court decision. The High Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh decision based on the observations made.

Examination of duty payment on pharmaceutical products under different brand names:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical products under their brand name and others, claimed duty benefits under specific notifications. The appellant asserted that products under their brand name were cleared without duty payment, while claiming Cenvat credit on inputs used for products under other brand names. The Tribunal had previously examined a similar issue in the appellant's case for a subsequent period and found the demand of duty to be unsustainable. The High Court noted the Tribunal's inconsistency in applying the Supreme Court judgment and directed a fresh decision.

Consideration of previous judgments in the appellant's own case:
The High Court highlighted that a previous judgment in the appellant's own case had not been adequately considered by the Tribunal while deciding the application for pre-deposit of duty. The appellant had referred to a judgment that was not taken into account by the Tribunal, leading to an erroneous reliance on the Supreme Court decision. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant judgments in the appellant's case for a fair decision.

Correctness of Tribunal's decision in relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment without properly considering the distinctions made in the appellant's own case. The Tribunal's failure to take into account the appellant's specific circumstances and previous judgments led to an erroneous decision on the pre-deposit of duty. As a result, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and instructed a fresh decision based on the correct interpretation of the law and relevant judgments.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the High Court's decision on each aspect of the case.

← Previous Next →