9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 34 - AT - Central ExciseModification of an interlocutory order - Held that - Appellant has mainly stressed on the point that clearances of Sulphuric Acid which were effected by the appellant were under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 is to fertilizer units and were exempted. We find that, on identical issue, in the case of Bodal Chemicals Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 817 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , this Bench had granted unconditional waiver following the various orders of the Tribunal and also relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nirma Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2011 (4) TMI 379 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD which has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat 2015 (1) TMI 816 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Accordingly, we allow the modification application and modify our Stay Order dated 15-1-2014 to the extent that the applications filed for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved need to be allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. In sum, the applicants need not pre-deposit any amount for hearing and disposal of these appeals - Stay granted.
Issues Involved:
Application for modification of stay order passed ex parte despite an application for adjournment - Circular precluding the hearing of modification of interlocutory order - Application for modification of stay order filed by the appellant - Clearances of Sulphuric Acid under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. - Granting unconditional waiver based on precedent - Modification of stay order to allow waiver of pre-deposit till disposal of appeals. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved the consideration of an application for the modification of a stay order. The Tribunal noted that the original stay order was passed ex parte, despite an application for adjournment from the advocate on record. The Tribunal referred to a Circular issued by the Hon'ble President, which precluded the hearing of applications for the modification of interlocutory orders. However, the Circular specifically allowed for the modification of stay orders if they were passed without hearing the appellant, which was the case in this instance. Upon reviewing the records and arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal focused on the appellant's contention regarding the clearances of Sulphuric Acid under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006, which were claimed to be exempted for fertilizer units. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving Bodal Chemicals Ltd., where a similar issue had been addressed, and unconditional waiver was granted based on Tribunal orders and a decision upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. In light of the precedent set in previous cases, including the decision in the case of Nirma Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, the Tribunal allowed the modification application. The Tribunal modified the original stay order to the extent that the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved were to be allowed, and recovery was stayed until the final disposal of the appeals. Consequently, the applicants were not required to pre-deposit any amount for the hearing and disposal of the appeals. The modification application was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order in court.
|
