2013 (10) TMI 886 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of eligibility of CENVAT Credit Waiver of Pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty under Rule 15(2) of CC Rules, 2004 r.w Section 11AC of the CE Act - Held that - Following Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCEX, Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - This Tribunal has been taking a consistent view by allowing stay petition of the assessee where extended period of limitation is involved but directed predeposit, wherever demand is for normal period of limitation - the Applicant are directed to make amount as pre-deposit of Rs. 2.50 Lakh upon such submission the balance dues would waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Partial Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Disposal of stay petitions involving denial of Cenvat credit on Iron and Steel items used as structurals.
- Interpretation of Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. case.
- Consideration of conflicting decisions and applicability of Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.

Analysis:
The judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI pertains to the disposal of stay petitions concerning the denial of Cenvat credit on Iron and Steel items used as structurals, with a total duty of Rs.3,59,513 confirmed against the applicant. The issue at hand, being identical, was addressed collectively. The Tribunal noted that the matter was covered by the Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. case. However, the appellant's counsel referred to a conflicting decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Visakhapatnam-II Vs. APP Mills Ltd., which did not follow the Vandana Global Ltd. decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.

Considering the conflicting decisions, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 2.50 Lakh as collective duty within six weeks, based on the overall facts and the decision in the APP Mills Ltd. case. Upon compliance with the deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty was waived, and the recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance the conflicting precedents and ensure compliance with the deposit requirement while providing relief in terms of the pending duty and penalty recovery.