2014 (7) TMI 925 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - tribunal to consider prima-facie case or to study the matter in detail for considering the case in a stay application and reach the conclusion when the matter is pending before Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - Tribunal should not have gone into the entire details or the merits of the controversy in such particulars as possibly highlighted. Even if, the Tribunal has rendered a conclusion on the merits that we do not find to have been adequately clarified. The only submission in these two paragraphs which indicates that the Tribunal has taken a prima facie view is that the appellant has not made out any case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged, that prior thereto, observations have been made and with regard to the applicability and contravention of the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by the assessee is restored to the file of the Tribunal for being heard afresh in accordance with law. Even if, detailed submissions are made by both the sides before the Tribunal, we would expect the Tribunal not to render a conclusive finding and opinion on the merits of the matter namely the pending appeal before the Commissioner. The Tribunal may refer to the arguments and some of the judgments which may be brought to its notice but we would expect it to be cautious and careful in not expressing any final opinion thereon - matter remanded back. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order on predeposit condition waiver.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Tribunal's order dated 15th January, 2013, where the appellant-assessee contested the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)'s decision of not granting a complete waiver of the predeposit condition. The Commissioner directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 24,00,000 and report compliance. The Tribunal, however, delved into the merits of the case extensively, which the High Court found unnecessary. The Tribunal's detailed analysis included the appellant's contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, regarding input service tax credit and exemption violations. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's findings should not bind the pending appeal before the Commissioner and quashed the Tribunal's order, restoring the appeal to be heard afresh. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal should not conclusively decide on the merits of the case and should focus on whether there is sufficient material to support a complete waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay of recovery. The High Court allowed the appeal with no costs, keeping all contentions open and instructing the Tribunal to decide the matter without influence from the previous findings.