2015 (10) TMI 1658 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit -benefits of Notification No. 89/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995 - Held that - At the stage of consideration of the stay applications and for waiver of predeposit in the several appeals, we notice a clear conflict of authority between decisions of coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. 2009 (5) TMI 419 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and in Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur 2013 (7) TMI 51 - CESTAT MUMBAI , on the one hand; and in Commissioner v. A.G. Flats Ltd. 2011 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , on the other. Since the conflict is in decisions of coordinate Benches, it is appropriate that in the interest of doctrinal stability, the matter should be considered for resolution by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the conflict, noticed supra be referred to a Larger Bench and we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon ble President, CESTAT for appropriate orders. - it is appropriate to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay all the proceedings for realization of the respective assessed liabilities, pending disposal of these appeals. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of excise duty on by-products; Conflict of authority between different Tribunal decisions; Granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of proceedings.

Confirmation of Excise Duty on By-Products:
The appellants filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner confirming the classification of various by-products arising from the manufacture of edible oil as excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants' claim for benefits under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. was rejected, leading to the confirmation of demands for duty, interest, and penalty in both primary adjudications and appeals. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing these decisions.

Conflict of Authority Between Tribunal Decisions:
During the consideration of stay applications and waiver of pre-deposit in the appeals, the Tribunal noted a clear conflict between decisions of coordinate Benches in different cases. The conflict arose between the decisions in CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. and Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. on one side, and Commissioner v. A.G. Flats Ltd. on the other. Given the conflicting decisions of coordinate Benches, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution to ensure doctrinal stability. Consequently, the Registry was directed to present the case before the Hon'ble President of CESTAT for further action.

Granting Waiver of Pre-Deposit and Stay of Proceedings:
Due to the existing conflict on the issue and the referral to a Larger Bench for resolution, the Tribunal decided to grant a waiver of pre-deposit and stay all proceedings related to the assessed liabilities until the appeals were disposed of. This decision was made to ensure fairness and procedural clarity in light of the conflicting decisions of the coordinate Benches. As a result, the stay applications in the appeals were disposed of accordingly, providing temporary relief to the appellants.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the core issues addressed in the judgment, including the confirmation of excise duty on specific by-products, the conflict of authority between different Tribunal decisions, and the decision to grant a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of proceedings pending further resolution by a Larger Bench.