2013 (7) TMI 402 - AT - Central Excise

Stay Application Waiver of Pre-deposit envat Credit on GTA Service - transportation of sugar cane - use of bagasse in generation of electricity - Held that - Relying upon the stay order passed in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum 2013 (7) TMI 432 - CESTAT BANGALORE , granted waiver of Pre-deposit Remanded the case back to Commissioner(A) with a request to dispose the case on its merits without insisting on any predeposit Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver and stay application due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
2. Denial of CENVAT credit by the original authority.
3. Direction for predeposit by the Commissioner(Appeals).
4. Rejection of modification application for full waiver.
5. Dismissal of appeal by the appellate authority in absence of predeposit evidence.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed an application seeking waiver and stay due to an impugned order passed based on non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found that the order was not on merits but on procedural grounds. Therefore, after dispensing with predeposit, the appeal was disposed of finally.

2. The appeal arose from an order denying CENVAT credit of Rs. 19,24,601/- by the original authority. The Commissioner(Appeals) directed predeposit of 25% of the credit, which was not complied with by the party. Despite a modification application for full waiver being rejected, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case.

3. The appellant's counsel argued a prima facie case against the predeposit direction, claiming merit in the appellant's case against the demand confirmed by the original authority. Reference was made to a previous Stay Order by the Tribunal in a similar case, where full waiver and stay were granted. The Superintendent(AR) acknowledged the similarity in facts and agreed that the appellant had a prima facie case warranting waiver of predeposit.

4. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by remand to the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner was directed to adjudicate the appeal against the Order-in-Original on its merits without requiring any predeposit. Emphasis was placed on issuing a comprehensive speaking order on all relevant issues in accordance with the law after providing the party with a fair opportunity to be heard.

5. The judgment also disposed of the stay application, bringing the legal proceedings to a conclusion with a clear directive for the Commissioner to address the appeal's merits without predeposit requirements, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles.

*(Pronounced and dictated in open court)*