2016 (1) TMI 294 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Mandatory pre deposit - Held that - After reproducing the provisions of section 35F, Board Circular dated 16.09.2014, categorically held that the amount deposited by the appellant was not reversed during the course of investigation, was paid by the appellant themselves and are matter of dispute with reference the duty demand confirmed. In the case in hand, we find that the impugned order is passed in adjudication proceedings in pursuance to the show cause notice issued for the demand of Central Excise duty, hence the duty amount deposited by the appellants needs to be considered as in compliance of the provisions of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - legislative intent in framing the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, was to ensure that the right of appeal of an assesse is never exhausted, but subject to the conditions that the assessee deposits an amount equivalent to 7.5% or 10% as the case may be, of the duty confirmed by lower authorities - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The appellant had made a payment towards Basic Excise duty, education cess, and higher education cess, citing it as in furtherance of a show cause notice. The appellant argued that this should be considered as substantive compliance with the provisions of section 35F. However, the departmental representative contended that the amount debited did not fulfill the deposit requirement under section 35F. The Tribunal examined a previous order and noted that the duty amount deposited by the appellant in the present case was in compliance with section 35F, as it was related to the demand of Central Excise duty in adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent behind section 35F was to ensure appeal rights for the assessee without excessive deposit requirements, and that the Tribunal could not exceed the statutory mandate. Consequently, the show cause notice was discharged, and the appeal was listed for disposal.

Conclusion:
The judgment primarily revolved around the interpretation and application of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concerning the deposit requirements for appeal rights. The Tribunal clarified that the duty amount deposited by the appellant in the adjudication proceedings was in compliance with section 35F, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the provision. The decision highlighted the Tribunal's role in adhering to statutory mandates and ensuring that appeal rights are not unduly restricted by excessive deposit requirements.