2015 (5) TMI 602 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - whether the goods cleared by the appellant falls under the category of other fertilizers or not - Held that - Factual issues have to be gone into by the Tribunal taking into consideration the relevant materials placed by the appellant - no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Being pure question of fact, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of duty demand - legality and sustainability.
2. Waiver of pre-deposit when merits of the case favor the appellant.
3. Passing pre-deposit order on an issue not in controversy.
4. Lack of application of mind in lower appellate authority's order.
5. Undue hardship in pre-deposit amount.
6. Limitation period and pre-deposit amount calculation.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant contested the Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit of over 70% of the duty demand, arguing that the order was illegal and unsustainable both on merits and limitation grounds. The Tribunal justified the pre-deposit based on the prima facie view that the goods did not substantially contain required ingredients for classification as fertilizers. The High Court found this to be a factual issue to be determined by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit, claiming that the merits of the case favored them, and the first respondent's order was contrary to settled law. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal needed to examine factual issues regarding the classification of the goods as fertilizers, and thus, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Issue 3:
The appellant questioned the correctness of the pre-deposit order, alleging that the Tribunal made a prima facie view on an issue not in controversy. The High Court emphasized that factual issues related to the goods' classification and limitation needed to be examined by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 4:
The appellant argued that the lower appellate authority's order lacked application of mind to statutory provisions and binding precedents. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had to consider relevant materials presented by the appellant to determine factual issues, and as such, confirmed the Tribunal's order.

Issue 5:
Regarding the contention of undue hardship due to the pre-deposit amount, the High Court reiterated that the Tribunal needed to examine factual issues related to the goods' classification and limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without interference.

Issue 6:
The appellant raised concerns about the limitation period and the calculation of the pre-deposit amount. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal had to delve into factual issues regarding the goods' classification and limitation, leading to the confirmation of the Tribunal's order and the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the factual issues concerning the goods' classification and limitation needed to be determined by the Tribunal, as they were not substantial questions of law for the High Court to consider. The appeal was dismissed, and the time for depositing the ordered amount was extended based on the appellant's request.