2009 (7) TMI 24 - HC - Central Excise

Stay was declined by the tribunal - stay was declined on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed material facts as the petitioner has not submitted details as to quantification of steel utilized as inputs for manufacture of the capital goods. - The dispute involved in the matter are still pending consideration before the Tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the contention that if the same issue is referred to a larger Bench, in ordinary course, there should be stay of the Tribunal s order Held that the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedent cannot be said to apply. - Even the issue referred to larger Bench was also not the same which is involved in the present case. - there is no irregularity or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excises & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Cenvat credit disallowance and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the order disallowing Cenvat credit and imposing penalties. The petitioner, engaged in cement and clinker manufacturing, availed Cenvat credit for expanding production capacity and setting up a power plant. The dispute arose when the Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed penalties under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The petitioner responded to the show-cause notice, emphasizing the credit eligibility for fabricating capital goods.

2. Despite the petitioner's submissions, the Commissioner upheld the disallowance and imposed penalties. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking a stay on the order. The Tribunal, after considering submissions, declined to waive the pre-deposit of the duty amount but waived the penalty pre-deposit. The Tribunal's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to provide satisfactory quantification of steel used as inputs for capital goods manufacturing.

3. The petitioner argued for a stay based on a reference to a larger Bench regarding Cenvat credit eligibility on inputs. The petitioner cited precedents and contended that similar cases were granted stays. However, the respondent opposed the stay application, supporting the Tribunal's decision.

4. The High Court analyzed the issues, including the reference to a larger Bench, and found that the petitioner failed to disclose crucial details regarding steel quantification. The Court emphasized that the issue referred to the larger Bench did not align with the present case. It was established that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for a stay, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

5. Conclusively, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating no irregularity or error in the Tribunal's order, and no interference was warranted. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing complete information and meeting the necessary criteria for seeking a stay. The petition was dismissed without costs.