2013 (12) TMI 1393 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of Cenvat credit Goods used in the factory as inputs or capital goods Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The period involved in the present case is from April, 2005 to June, 2009 and major portion of the demand has been raised beyond the normal period of limitation - The Tribunal has been taking a consistent view by allowing the stay petition un-conditionally in those cases, where cenvat credit is availed on the angles, channels, beams etc. used in the factory as capital goods or in the manufacture of capital goods Following Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CC Ex., Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - Pre-deposit directed for the normal period Assessee is directed to deposit Rupees Seven lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Paragraph 2 of the judgment addresses the submission made by the Appellant's Advocate regarding the availing of Cenvat credit on various iron and steel articles during the period from April 2005 to June 2009. The Advocate argued that these items were used in the factory for manufacturing capital goods. It was mentioned that a show-cause notice had been issued involving an extended period of limitation, with a portion falling within the normal period. The Advocate proposed to deposit a specific amount to settle the matter.

Paragraph 3 notes that the Department's Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), indicating their stance on the case.

In Paragraph 4, the Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. The Tribunal acknowledged that the demand was primarily beyond the normal period of limitation. Referring to past precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that in cases involving the availment of Cenvat credit on specific items for manufacturing capital goods, they have allowed stay petitions unconditionally but directed pre-deposit for the normal period. The Tribunal accepted the Advocate's offer to deposit a specified amount and directed the Appellant to comply within a stipulated timeframe. It was clarified that upon depositing this amount, the remaining dues would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal process. Failure to comply would lead to the dismissal of the appeal without further notice, thereby concluding the disposition of the stay petition.

The judgment was signed by Dr. D.M. Misra, and the operative part of the order was already pronounced in court.