2013 (12) TMI 1144 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty under Rule 26 - Documents issued for availment of cenvat credit without payment of the inputs Held that - The issue needs deeper consideration from the Bench as it is on record that appellant has issued invoices and there was no movement of goods - The first appellate authority has already considered all the arguments and reduced the penalties - penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is pari-materia to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be invoked for imposing of penalty on the Company all these aspects can be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal Assessee directed to submit Rupees fifty thousand as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under Rule 26 on the main appellant and an individual for issuing documents for cenvat credit without payment of inputs.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered the issue of waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Rule 26 on the main appellant and an individual for issuing documents for cenvat credit without payment of inputs. The appellant argued that penalties were reduced by the first appellate authority and referenced a decision by the Principle Bench Delhi in a similar case. The Tribunal noted that a Larger Bench decision in a related case had ruled that penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, similar to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be imposed on a company. The Tribunal decided to allow the appellant to deposit Rs. 50,000 within eight weeks and report compliance, with further proceedings scheduled based on the compliance report.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel regarding the applicability of Rule 26 to the appellant and the distinction made in various subsequent decisions. The Tribunal directed the appellant to comply with a deposit requirement and set a timeline for compliance reporting. The Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit for the balance amounts involved, with recovery stayed until the appeals were disposed of.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a deeper consideration of the issue due to the complexities involved, particularly regarding the movement of goods and the issuance of invoices. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the decisions made by the first appellate authority and the relevance of past judgments in similar cases. The Tribunal's decision to allow the deposit and stay recovery was based on the need for further examination and consideration of the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel.

This detailed analysis covers the Tribunal's considerations, references to past judgments, and the specific directives given regarding the deposit and compliance reporting, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment's key points and implications.