2016 (11) TMI 925 - AT - Central Excise

Verification of the deposit particulars against demand - Held that - Looking into the length of litigation and its outcome, we do not propose to keep the matter pending further. When Tribunal s stay order prima facie made categorical finding as to discharge of the liability by appellant there is no scope to doubt further as to such deposit in absence of any evidence to the Contrary. Ld. Counsel is correct in his averment to say that even after the stay order was passed, discrepancy in deposit has not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal - Revenue is directed to make verification of the challans stated by the ld. Counsel at page-4 of the stay order No. 860-861/2005 dated 07.10.2005 and reconcile the same. Discrepancy if any may be dealt appropriately - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Verification of payment particulars and adjustment of deposits in appeals challenging duty demands.

Analysis:
The matter involved appeals challenging duty demands raised by the Revenue against the appellant. The appellant had consistently pleaded for verification of the deposit particulars made against the demands. The Revenue was directed to verify the payment particulars, which they requested more time for, despite the appeal pending for 11 years. The appeals involved duty demands on tarpaulin and captively consumed flexible plain sheets of plastics, along with denial of Cenvat credit and demands due to differential prices, totaling to ?98,64,401. The appellant had already paid ?1,10,45,464 towards the demands, seeking adjustment of the excess amount paid. The Tribunal's stay order had noted the amount payable by the appellant as ?26,22,862, which the appellant had deposited. Despite the appellant's payments, duty demands were confirmed without adjusting the amounts already paid.

The appellant had paid a pre-deposit in a similar case, and the remaining amount was deposited as directed by the Tribunal. The appellant highlighted their submissions and prayed for the appeals to be allowed without any further demand payable. The Revenue did not dispute the submissions made by the appellant but sought time to verify the deposit particulars. The appellant emphasized that the fact of deposit was submitted to the Tribunal in 2005, and the Revenue had not challenged the stay order or raised any discrepancies regarding the deposits. The Tribunal, considering the length of litigation and the stay order findings, allowed both appeals, directing the Revenue to verify and reconcile the challans provided by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that without contest on merit, further intervention was unnecessary, and both appeals were allowed accordingly.