9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1035 - AT - Central ExcisePre-deposit - applicability of percentage of deposit as existed prior to amendment - Whether the appellant s right of appeal continues to be governed by the appellate provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as they existed on the date of issuance of the show cause notice viz. April 1, 2014 and the provisions of Section 35F substituted with effect from August 6, 2014 have no application in its case? - Held that - Prima facie we are of the view that to reduce the litigation the law as in force prior to 06.08.2014 is invocable to the present applications without multiplying the pendency and accordingly these stay applications are disposed by this common order for similar facts involved - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs 2015 (10) TMI 2446 - DELHI HIGH COURT , where it was held that Section 35 F indicated that on and after the date of its enforcement an Assessee in appeal was required to deposit the stipulated percentage of duty and if it failed to do so, CESTAT shall not entertain the appeal. Petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Applicability of quantum of pre-deposit post-amendment, interpretation of law in force before 06.08.2014, benefit of exemption notification, applicability of Tribunal's decision on brand name usage, direction for deposit by Appellants, consideration of BIFR company status in deposit requirement, compliance deadline for deposit, stay of balance demand realization during appeal disposal. Analysis: 1. Applicability of Quantum of Pre-Deposit Post-Amendment: The appellants argued that the law in force before 06.08.2014 should apply to their cases regarding the quantum of pre-deposit. This issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta for consideration. The question raised pertains to whether the appellant's right of appeal is governed by the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as on the date of the show cause notice or the provisions substituted from August 6, 2014. 2. Interpretation of Law in Force Before 06.08.2014: The appellants contended that the law as in force before 06.08.2014 should apply to their cases until completion. They argued that the prescribed percentage formula should not apply to their cases. The Tribunal agreed that the law before 06.08.2014 should be considered for the present applications. 3. Benefit of Exemption Notification: The Tribunal referred to a previous decision denying the benefit of an exemption notification for manufacturing using another brand name. It was clarified that affixing the brand name of another person renders the assessee ineligible for the exemption, regardless of the reason for doing so or whether the goods are sold. 4. Applicability of Tribunal's Decision on Brand Name Usage: The Tribunal noted that appellants from previous final orders had approached the Apex Court. The Tribunal decided that the law before 06.08.2014 should be applied to the present applications to reduce litigation, following the ratio of decisions by Hon'ble High Courts in similar cases. 5. Direction for Deposit by Appellants: Appellants were directed to make a deposit of 7.5% of the duty demand concerning issues settled by the Tribunal in previous final orders. The liability for Notification benefit was determined based on the Tribunal's decision for the normal period for calculating the prescribed percentage deposit. 6. Consideration of BIFR Company Status in Deposit Requirement: The Tribunal clarified that being a BIFR company does not exempt an appellant from making the required deposit. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it emphasized the importance of saving public revenue and directed compliance with deposit requirements. 7. Compliance Deadline for Deposit and Stay of Balance Demand Realization: Appellants were given 12 weeks to make the deposit, with compliance due by 12.12.2016. Upon compliance, the realization of the balance demand was stayed during the disposal of the appeal. This comprehensive analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, providing a detailed understanding of the Tribunal's decisions and directions in the case.
|
