2014 (4) TMI 1030 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - When the legislation has not made any distinction, we cannot make such distinction by judicial order. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the appellate authority for insisting the payment of the entire amount of duty as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. However, at that stage itself the Tribunal appears to have made up its mind to the effect that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of this input tax, which was erroneous. The appellant is yet to argue the case on merits. The respondent is also to be heard. It is only thereafter the Tribunal can come to the conclusion one way or the other. Therefore, the observations made on the merits of the appeal should not be taken into consideration as a binding precedent while deciding the appeal on merits. The tribunal shall consider the matter on merits and in accordance with law, ignoring the observations made by it in the impugned order, that would meet the ends of justice - stay denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against refusal to waive pre-deposit condition for maintaining an appeal.
2. Entitlement to deduction of input tax benefit.
3. Application of waiver provision to statutory authority and government departments.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed challenging the Tribunal's order refusing to waive the pre-deposit condition for maintaining an appeal. The appellants argued that the Tribunal had previously granted the benefit, remanded the matter, but later declined the waiver, citing the appellant's alleged ineligibility for input tax deduction. The Revenue supported the impugned order, emphasizing the need for the pre-deposit condition.

2. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not thoroughly examined the issue previously, leading to a remand to the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after due consideration, provided detailed reasons for denying the input tax benefit to the appellant. The Court upheld the requirement for pre-deposit, stating that no distinction should be made for statutory authorities or government departments unless specified by legislation. The Tribunal prematurely concluded the appellant's ineligibility for input tax benefit, which was deemed erroneous. The Court directed a fresh consideration of the matter on merits, disregarding the Tribunal's previous observations, to ensure justice.

3. The Court dismissed the appeal, granting the appellant four weeks to make the pre-deposit and proceed with the appeal arguments on merits. The judgment clarified the need for a fair assessment of the case without being influenced by prior observations, emphasizing the importance of a thorough examination of the appeal in accordance with the law.