2013 (5) TMI 704 - HC - Central Excise

CESTAT dismissed the appeal for non deposit of amount within permitted time limit as per stay order - Cenvat Credit - unprocessed fabrics procured from the weavers and manufactures of such fabrics. - held that - It is not in dispute that some time in March, 2011 in various installments, the petitioners had deposited the said sum of Rs. 4 lacs. Despite such deposits, the Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that the amount was not deposited within the time permitted nor any extension was sought from the Tribunal. Thereupon, the petitioners have approached this Court. The petitioners had deposited the amount of pre-deposit, of course after some delay - appeals are required to be heard on merits - matter restored before the tribunal - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding CENVAT credit on unprocessed fabrics.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,29,601/- on unprocessed fabrics procured from weavers and manufacturers.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice questioning the CENVAT credit availed by the petitioners, leading to an order confirming the demand with penalty and interest.
3. The petitioners appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who granted a stay on the condition of depositing Rs. 4 lacs or furnishing a bank guarantee, which the petitioners failed to comply with, resulting in dismissal of the appeals.
4. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the Tribunal, which allowed time for depositing the sum but rejected the appeals when the petitioners failed to comply within the specified time.
5. Despite depositing the sum in installments, the Tribunal rejected the appeals due to delay in depositing the amount within the permitted time without seeking an extension.
6. The High Court, after considering the delayed deposit by the petitioners, set aside the Tribunal's order and the Commissioner (Appeals) order, directing that the appeals be heard on merits. The petition was disposed of accordingly.