2014 (5) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Modification of order - Waiver of pre deposit - Default in payment of duty - restriction on utilizing cenvat credti under Rule 8(3A) - Held that - The difference of opinion pending before the Principal Bench of CESTAT, Delhi is not an order at all and it has no binding value. - Following decision of Sharp Industries Ltd. 2014 (3) TMI 488 - CESTAT MUMBAI - There is no merit in modification application - Modification denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification application filed by the appellant based on a difference of opinion between Members of the Tribunal.
2. Validity of the stay order passed by the Tribunal.
3. Comparison with a similar matter decided in favor of the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a modification application citing a difference of opinion between Members of the Tribunal in a similar matter. The appellant argued that the stay order should be recalled until the difference of opinion is resolved. However, the Tribunal noted that the difference of opinion pending before the Principal Bench of CESTAT, Delhi does not hold any binding value. The Tribunal emphasized that its stay order was based on a decision of the High Court and dismissed the modification application.

2. The Tribunal considered the validity of the stay order dated 11/11/2013, which directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.2.22 crore. The Tribunal clarified that the stay order was in line with a decision of the High Court and was not affected by the difference of opinion in another matter. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with the stay order and directed the appellant to make the pre-deposit immediately.

3. The Revenue argued that a final order had been passed in a similar matter in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the Sharp Industries Ltd. case where the matter was decided in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the modification application lacked merit based on the decision in the Sharp Industries Ltd. case and directed the appellant to comply with the stay order by making the required pre-deposit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the modification application, upheld the validity of the stay order, and directed the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. Failure to comply would result in the appeal being liable to dismissal without further notice.