2017 (7) TMI 20 - HC - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - case of appellant is that even in so far as the balance demand in the sum of ₹ 56,79,644/- (Rs.83,64,207/- minus ₹ 26,86,563/-) is concerned, since it related to clearance by job workers, they were entitled to benefit of another Notification i.e., Notification No.83/94-CE dated 11.04.1994 - Held that - it would suffice, if, for the moment, the main appellant deposits total amount equivalent to ₹ 50 Lakhs as against ₹ 85 Lakhs which has been ordered to be deposited by the Tribunal. Since, ₹ 47 Lakhs is said to have been already deposited, the appellant will deposit a further sum of ₹ 3 Lakhs, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
Challenge to final order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Extension of time for compliance with stay order; Utilization of Cenvat credit; Failure to fully deposit pre-deposit amount; Questions of law framed for consideration; Failure to address financial hardship in pre-deposit requirement; Denial of Notification benefits; Plea for waiver of pre-deposit amount.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Tribunal's Final Order:
The appeal filed under 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 contested the final order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The impugned judgment dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application seeking an extension of time to comply with the directions in the stay order dated 28.11.2014 and utilize Cenvat credit. The applications of other appellants connected to the main appellant were also dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Failure to Fully Deposit Pre-Deposit Amount:
The Tribunal's reason for the dismissal was the main appellant's failure to fully deposit the pre-deposit amount despite several opportunities. Against the required amount of ?85 Lakhs, the main appellant had only deposited ?31 Lakhs. The appellant later deposited an additional ?16 Lakhs and committed to depositing a further ?3 Lakhs within two weeks.

3. Questions of Law Framed for Consideration:
The Court had framed questions of law for consideration, including the postponement or rejection of Cenvat credit, denial of circular benefits for payment in installments, and the legality of dismissing the miscellaneous application without addressing the right to claim Cenvat credit. However, the Court declined to answer these questions as they were deemed not arising from the impugned judgment.

4. Failure to Address Financial Hardship in Pre-Deposit Requirement:
The Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider whether the directed pre-deposit amount would cause financial hardship to the main appellant. Despite the interim stay granted based on a pre-deposit condition, the main appellant demonstrated a prima facie case in their favor.

5. Denial of Notification Benefits:
The Adjudicating Authority had denied the main appellant the benefit of a specific Notification, leading to a demand of ?2,87,70,089 along with interest and penalty. The appellants disputed the demand quantification and claimed eligibility for Cenvat credit and benefits under another Notification.

6. Plea for Waiver of Pre-Deposit Amount:
In light of the circumstances, the main appellant and other appellants pleaded for a waiver of the entire pre-deposit amount. The Court directed the main appellant to deposit a total of ?50 Lakhs instead of the ordered ?85 Lakhs, with ?47 Lakhs already deposited, and an additional ?3 Lakhs to be deposited within two weeks.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the impugned order, disposed of the appeal based on the directed deposit amount, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.

← Previous Next →