2014 (9) TMI 406 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of the pre-condition deposit of duty - Held that - The foundation of the order, passed by the Tribunal, is laid upon the judgment of the Larger Bench, rendered in the case of Vandana Global Limited (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)), which does not hold the field because of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal, in subsequent matters, has clearly indicated that the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal is no longer a valid law and, therefore, this Court finds that the order impugned cannot be sustained at all. It does not appear from the impugned order whether the judgment of the Supreme Court and the subsequent judgments of the Tribunal were placed before the Tribunal or not. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not record any findings on the merit of the matter. This Court, therefore, feels that justice would be sub-served if the application, seeking waiver of the pre-condition deposit of duty, is considered afresh by the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order imposing duty, waiver of pre-condition deposit of duty, applicability of previous judgments, validity of impugned order, consideration of materials before Tribunal, sustainability of order based on previous judgment, quashing and remanding of order.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to order imposing duty:
The petitioner challenged the order imposing duty before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata.

2. Waiver of pre-condition deposit of duty:
The petitioner sought waiver of the pre-condition deposit of duty in the appeal. The Tribunal directed the deposit of 25% of the duty imposed by the assessing officer based on a Larger Bench judgment.

3. Applicability of previous judgments:
The petitioner argued that the judgment in Vandana Global Limited case was no longer valid due to a Supreme Court judgment. They also cited a subsequent Tribunal judgment holding the Larger Bench decision invalid.

4. Validity of impugned order:
The petitioner contended that since the impugned order was based on a judgment no longer valid, it was unsustainable. The respondent argued that the judgment was applied to benefit the petitioner.

5. Consideration of materials before Tribunal:
The petitioner presented a certificate from a chartered accountant supporting their claim that materials were used as capital goods. They argued that the Tribunal's premise was wrong.

6. Sustainability of order based on previous judgment:
The Court found that the Tribunal's order was based on a judgment no longer valid due to subsequent decisions. The Tribunal did not consider the Supreme Court judgment or subsequent Tribunal decisions.

7. Quashing and remanding of order:
The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to consider all materials and dispose of the application in accordance with the law.

8. Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the writ petition without costs, allowing the Tribunal to decide the application independently. The order was to be handed over to the parties' advocates for further action.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised, arguments presented, and the Court's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings involved.