2015 (6) TMI 737 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre dpeosit - Annual Capacity Production - compound levy scheme on re-rolling mills - Held that - Decision in the case of 2015 (6) TMI 587 - CESTAT CHENNAI followed - impugned order confirming the demand is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority with the direction to follow the directions ordered in Tribunal s Final order dated 24.02.2015 and decide on merits after determining the ACP. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of stay order related to Annual Capacity Production (ACP) under compound levy scheme on re-rolling mills.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 and compliance by a certain date. The issue pertained to Annual Capacity Production (ACP) under the compound levy scheme on re-rolling mills. The appellant argued that the demand arose from an original adjudication order by the Commissioner, which had been set aside and remanded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant requested modification of the stay order and remand of the present appeal to the original authority as no demand existed. The Tribunal allowed the modification of the miscellaneous application, waived the pre-deposit, and took up the appeal for disposal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the present appeal was a consequential demand of the Commissioner's order, which had been set aside and remanded. Referring to the Tribunal's order dated 24.02.2015, the Tribunal remanded all appeals related to the issue to the adjudicating authority with specific directions. The Tribunal emphasized granting a fair opportunity of hearing, following relevant judgments, allowing abatement where permissible, ensuring natural justice, determining ACP in accordance with rules, and considering the challenge to Rule 5 before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the authorities to hear the matter afresh, record evidence properly, and pass reasoned orders expeditiously.

In light of the above directions and conclusions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the demand and remanded the matter to the original authority. The Tribunal instructed the authority to follow the directions in the Tribunal's final order dated 24.02.2015, decide on merits after determining the ACP, link the present appeal with the original appeal, and consider the amount already paid by the appellant in the denovo proceedings. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

Therefore, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the modification of the stay order, remanding the appeal to the original authority, and providing specific directions for reconsideration and adjudication in accordance with the law and previous orders.