2013 (11) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit - Penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules Amount already invested Held that - The applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs.1.68 lakhs during the course of adjudication proceedings and they are willing to deposit an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs - the deposit of the amount would be sufficient for hearing the appeal - the applicant directed to deposit Rupees two lakhs as a pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit and penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit and penalty amounting to Rs.10.43 lakhs imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's representative argued that the issue revolved around the availment of cenvat credit on capital goods. The demand was upheld due to the appellant availing credit and also claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the same assets. The appellant had already paid Rs.1.68 lakhs along with interest, which was acknowledged by both parties. The appellant contended that the Department's calculation was erroneous, estimating the demand to be around Rs.3.00 lakhs. The appellant expressed willingness to deposit an additional amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The Revenue representative did not contest the payment of Rs.1.68 lakhs already made by the appellant.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had already deposited Rs.1.68 lakhs during the adjudication proceedings and was prepared to deposit an additional Rs.2.00 lakhs. Considering this, the Tribunal deemed the total deposit of Rs.3.68 lakhs to be sufficient for the appeal process. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.2.00 lakhs within eight weeks and report compliance by a specified date. Upon this deposit, the remaining dues adjudged would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. Additionally, the Registry was instructed to list the appeal before the Single Member Bench for further proceedings. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Dr. D. M. Misra.