2014 (2) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for failure to compliance of pre deposit order - Application for modification of stay order was dismissed for non-prosecution - Held that - time-bar issue is a factual aspect based on evidence and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima facie case on the limitation during the stay stage. On reading the findings in the stay order, it is very clear that the applicant withdrew their application seeking provisional assessment - Tribunal observed that the aspect would be considered after hearing the matter at length and examining the evidences in detail. In view of that, we do not find any reason for modification of the stay order dated 5.8.2013. However, after considering the submission of the learned Advocate, we extend the period of compliance of the stay order by further four weeks - Appeal restored.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance of stay order.
2. Modification of stay order.
3. Consideration of limitation aspect in the stay order.

Restoration of Appeal:
The applicant filed an application for restoration of the appeal dismissed due to non-compliance with the stay order. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, recalled the Final Order and restored the appeal to its original number. The application for modification of the stay order was also taken up. The Tribunal reviewed the stay order dated 5.8.2013, where the applicant was directed to make a pre-deposit and report compliance. The applicant argued that there was no intimation about the hearing on 5.11.2013, leading to an ex parte order. After detailed consideration, the Tribunal restored the appeal and miscellaneous application.

Modification of Stay Order:
The Tribunal analyzed the facts presented by both parties regarding the modification of the stay order. The authorized representative highlighted the applicant's failure to provide necessary documents related to cost production, leading to a prima facie case of tax evasion. The applicant countered by stating there was no provisional assessment and no suppression of facts. The Deputy Director's opinion on cost calculation was a crucial factor in the decision. The Tribunal directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit and extended the compliance period, emphasizing the importance of evidence and detailed examination during the appeal hearing.

Consideration of Limitation Aspect:
The issue of time-bar and limitation was raised during the stay application hearing. The applicant argued that the Tribunal did not consider the limitation aspect and cited a previous case where stay was allowed based on limitation grounds. The Revenue representative maintained that the Tribunal had already addressed the limitation aspect in detail and found evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's stance, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of facts and evidence during the appeal hearing. The stay order was not modified based on the limitation aspect, but the compliance period was extended after considering the arguments presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the restoration of the appeal, modification of the stay order, and the consideration of the limitation aspect. The decision highlighted the importance of evidence, detailed examination of facts, and compliance with directives regarding pre-deposit and reporting requirements. The Tribunal's ruling aimed to ensure a fair and thorough review of the case during the appeal process.