Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 13 - HC - Central ExciseExemption from the condition of pre-deposit - Assessee has been asked to deposit upto 50% of the amount of duty as pre-deposit for hearing of appeal though - Commissioner/ CESTAT have passed orders to exempt condition of pre-deposit to some extent - In few cases, it has been directed to deposit upto 25% of the amount of duty and, in some other cases, to the extent of 50% of the demand - Held that - taking into consideration the amendment brought through the Finance Act, 2014 that condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the amount of duty without any provision for exemption has been provided and various orders, the orders passed by the Commissioner/ CESTAT need interference. Thus, on deposit of 15% of the amount of duty or the penalty, as the case may be, appeals would be heard by the Commissioner/ CESTAT. The amount of 15% of the duty or the penalty, as the case may be, would be deposited within a period of one month from today. - Appeals disposed of
Issues:
Challenge to second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Validity of orders passed by Commissioner/CESTAT on applications for exemption from pre-deposit. Analysis: The judgment dealt with a challenge to the second proviso to section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the validity of orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT on applications for exemption from pre-deposit. Initially, the challenge to the second proviso was not pressed as the court considered an alternative prayer to make the condition of pre-deposit reasonable. The Finance Act, 2014 limited pre-deposit to 7.5% or 10% of the demand to maintain an appeal. The court considered the legislative intent behind the amendment, aiming to expedite appeal hearings by avoiding disputes over pre-deposit. The court decided that appeals would be heard by the Commissioner/CESTAT on depositing 15% of the duty or penalty within one month. The judgment modified the impugned orders to align with this direction. Regarding non-compliance with pre-deposit orders leading to appeal dismissals, the parties agreed that appeals would be restored upon depositing the directed amount. The judgment clarified that if an assessee had already deposited more than directed, the appeal would proceed without further pre-deposit conditions. The judgment emphasized compliance with the directed deposit amount within the specified timeframe for appeal restoration. Each connected file was to have a copy of the judgment for reference and implementation.
|