2013 (8) TMI 65 - AT - Central Excise

Stay application Waiver of pre-deposit Submission of the appellant that there is an error in the impugned order in as much as the first appellate authority has held that the appellants should have filed two appeals against the show cause notices decided by the adjudicating authority Held that - This Bench vide Stay Order No. M/12324 to 12327/WZB/AHD/2013, dt.13.05.2013, on an identical issue, has held that the first appellate authority should not have held that the appellant should have filed two separate appeals against the two separate show cause notices Also, issue involved in this case is regarding the classification of Salmonella Antigens. In the appellant s own case, vide Final Order dt.03.10.2011, as reported in 2011 (10) TMI 93 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , this Bench has taken a view holding in favour of the assessee - Appellants have made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of Salmonella Antigens, Incorrect findings by first appellate authority regarding filing of separate appeals against show cause notices.

Analysis:
1. Classification of Salmonella Antigens: The judgment addresses the issue of the classification of Salmonella Antigens. The appellant had a previous favorable ruling by the Bench in a similar case. The judgment mentions that the Bench had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in a Final Order dated 03.10.2011. This establishes a precedent in favor of the appellant regarding the classification of Salmonella Antigens.

2. Incorrect findings by first appellate authority: The judgment highlights an error in the impugned order made by the first appellate authority. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the first appellate authority incorrectly stated that the appellant should have filed two separate appeals against two show cause notices. The Bench, after hearing both sides, clarified that only one appeal needs to be filed by an assessee if there is one Order-in-Original, which was correctly done by the appellant in this case. The judgment refers to a previous Stay Order by the same Bench, which supported the appellant's position on this issue.

3. Decision on Stay Petition: After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Bench found that the appellants had a valid case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Consequently, the application for waiver of pre-deposit was allowed, and the recovery of the amounts was stayed until the appeal is disposed of. This decision was based on the appellant's successful argument regarding the incorrect findings by the first appellate authority and the precedent set by the Bench in a previous case related to the classification of Salmonella Antigens.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of classification of Salmonella Antigens and the incorrect findings by the first appellate authority regarding filing separate appeals. The appellant's arguments were supported by a previous favorable ruling by the Bench, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant for a complete waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved.