2015 (10) TMI 1963 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - penalty imposed under Rule 18 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determinations And Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - as the Notification and also the Board s Circular dated 24-1-2014 are specific, therefore, it would be difficult to appreciate that if a single track machine is capable of producing the quantify of goods that could be manufactured by a double track machine, therefore, the single track machine be treated as double track machine, for the purpose of determination of rate of duty under the said Rules. In the result, the Applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Consequently all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of total amount and penalty under Rule 18 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determinations And Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Similarity of Issues with Previous Case (Ex. Ap. 951/11):
The Advocate for the Applicant argued that the issue in the present case is akin to Ex. Ap. 951/11, where the Tribunal previously allowed a Stay Application. The Advocate contended that the facts and circumstances in both cases are identical, emphasizing the similarity between the present Appeals and the previous one.

2. Dispute Over Adjudicating Authority's Reasoning:
The Revenue's representative acknowledged the similarity in arguments but pointed out that the adjudicating authority upheld the demands in the present Appeals based on different reasoning. The authority's stance was that if a single track machine could produce goods equivalent to a double track machine, it should be treated as such for duty rate purposes. However, the Tribunal was unconvinced by this reasoning, citing specific Notifications and Circulars. Consequently, a prima facie case was established for the waiver of pre-deposit of dues, leading to the waiver of all adjudged dues with recovery stayed during the Appeal's pendency.

3. Final Decision and Stay Petitions:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, it was agreed that the circumstances in the present Applications mirrored those in Ex. Ap. 951/11. Despite the Revenue's argument regarding a slight difference in reasoning for sustaining the order, the Tribunal found the Notification and Circular to be explicit. As a result, the Tribunal granted total waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged and stayed the recovery during the Appeal process, ultimately allowing the Stay Petitions.

4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the consistency of issues with a previous case, the inadequacy of the adjudicating authority's reasoning, and the clear directives provided by relevant Notifications and Circulars. By granting the waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of dues, the Tribunal ensured fairness and adherence to established legal provisions in the matter at hand.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision-making process, maintaining the legal nuances and key points from the original text.