2014 (1) TMI 1008 - AT - Central Excise

Confirmation of the Compounded Levy Scheme - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The differential duty has been worked out by the adjudicating authority based upon the capacity of production, as per the Annual Production Capacity Rules - the details as regards the eligibility of deemed credit to the appellant in the absence of any document or any claim made cannot be considered at this stage - the appellant directed to deposit Rupees fifteen lakhs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal- partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of central excise duty, confirmation of differential duty under Compounded Levy Scheme, determination of production capacity, eligibility of deemed credit, requirement to discharge duty liability, direction for depositing a specific amount, stay on recovery until appeal disposal.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 52,77,378/- and Rs. 4,49,166/- along with interest. The confirmed amount is related to differential duty arising from the Compounded Levy Scheme. The adjudicating authority determined the duty based on the production capacity as per the Annual Production Capacity Rules. It is noted that the appellant's challenge against the production capacity determination was unsuccessful before the Bench and is now sub judice before the High Court. The appellant claims eligibility for deemed credit during the relevant period, which they assert should offset the duty liability calculated at Ad-valorem rates.

The Tribunal observed that without supporting documentation or prior claims before lower authorities, it is challenging to assess the appellant's entitlement to deemed credit. Acknowledging the appellant's assertion of approximately Rs. 42 Lakhs in deemed credit, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- within eight weeks. The purpose of this deposit is to ensure the appellant's commitment to the appeal process. Compliance with the deposit requirement would result in a stay on the recovery of the remaining amounts until the appeal is resolved.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the issues, including the eligibility of deemed credit and the duty liability. By imposing a specific deposit condition, the Tribunal aims to facilitate a fair hearing of the appeal while balancing the interests of both parties. The stay on recovery is contingent upon the appellant's compliance with the deposit directive, ensuring a structured approach to resolving the dispute.