2014 (8) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal against the letter asking for deposit of penalty - Held that - Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied the input-duty credit to the appellant. On a query from the Bench, learned advocate submitted that quantification of the demand taking into account their eligibility to input duty credit as per Tribunal s order has not yet been ascertained by the department till date. On perusal of the letter dt. 4.10.2013 of the Range Superintendent, I find that it is merely a communication for payment of the penalty and not an order itself against which an appeal could be filed. It is also noted that the Range Superintendent directed the appellants to deposit the penalty otherwise it would attract recovery proceedings by the department - appeal is not maintainable against mere communication for payment of penalty. However, the Range Superintendent should have quantified the demand as per Order of the Tribunal before initiation of recovery proceeding. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against communication of arrears of revenue; Maintainability of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals); Imposition of penalty; Determination of duty demand; Communication for payment of penalty; Appealability of communication for payment of penalty.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of the maintainability of appeals filed against the communication of arrears of revenue. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue contended that the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal as they were filed against the communication of arrears of Revenue. The Tribunal found that the appeals could be decided during the stay petition hearing and proceeded accordingly.

Regarding the imposition of penalty, it was noted that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Mercerized Cotton Yarn, and the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of duty for a specific period and imposed a penalty on the company and its Director. The Tribunal's Final Order had set aside the denial of input-duty credit to the appellant.

The communication for payment of penalty by the Range Superintendent was a crucial aspect of the case. The Superintendent directed the appellants to pay the penalty and interest as per the Tribunal's final order. The appellant resisted the demand, citing the eligibility of input duty credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) returned the appeal, stating that the matter had already been decided by the Tribunal.

Both parties presented their arguments regarding the appealability of the communication for payment of penalty. The Revenue's representative argued that no appeal would lie against such a communication, citing relevant Tribunal decisions. On the other hand, the appellant's advocate contended that the communication was contrary to law and appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals).

After thorough consideration, the Tribunal found that the communication for payment of penalty was not an appealable order. However, it noted that the Range Superintendent should have quantified the demand as per the Tribunal's order before initiating recovery proceedings. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications were also disposed of.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the appealability of communications for payment of penalties, emphasized the importance of quantifying demands accurately, and ultimately dismissed the appeals on the grounds of maintainability.