2013 (11) TMI 1204 - AT - Central Excise

Modification of stay order Deposit of 50% Cenvat credit amount Exemption under Notification No. 108/1995 Held that - While passing the stay order, all the facts on record had been considered and the pre-deposit had been ordered on the ground that there is no documentary evidence to prove that assesse had been notified by the Government of India as International organization for Notification No. 108/1995-CE - The pre-deposit ordered is only 50% of the Cenvat credit demand there was no merit in the application Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of stay order requiring deposit of Cenvat credit demand.
2. Eligibility of duty exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-CE.
3. Review of stay order based on same facts.
4. Financial hardship plea for waiving pre-deposit requirement.

Issue 1: Modification of Stay Order:
The appellant sought modification of the stay order directing the deposit of 50% of the Cenvat credit demand. The appellant argued that the goods supplied were eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-CE as the project was financed by an international organization. The Commissioner's order extending Cenvat credit in a similar context was cited. The appellant requested the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement.

Issue 2: Eligibility of Duty Exemption:
The Tribunal considered the eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-CE. It was noted that there was a lack of documentary evidence proving that the international organization financing the project had been notified by the Government of India as required under the notification. The Tribunal found that the issue in the Commissioner's order cited by the appellant was different in terms of period and notification, thus not identical to the current case.

Issue 3: Review of Stay Order:
The respondent opposed the modification application, arguing that the facts considered during the initial stay order review were comprehensive and that seeking a review based on the same facts was impermissible. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the pre-deposit was ordered due to insufficient evidence regarding the international organization's notification under the relevant notification.

Issue 4: Financial Hardship Plea:
Regarding the plea of financial hardship for waiving the pre-deposit requirement, the Tribunal observed that the ordered deposit amounted to Rs. 10,00,000, with no evidence of financial hardship presented by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, directing the appellant to deposit the specified amount within eight weeks, with the balance pre-deposit requirement waived upon compliance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the modification application, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments and the absence of financial hardship evidence. The appellant was instructed to comply with the deposit directive within a specified timeframe, with further recovery stayed pending appeal disposal.