2020 (10) TMI 472 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - section 35F of CEA - this is a second round of litigation - appellant had earlier complied with the requisite pre-deposit - HELD THAT - Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of SUPER TYRES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2005 (1) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI , have held that once the appellant assessee has made compliance of the provisions of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it would be appropriate for the authorities concerned to hear the appeal without pre-deposit condition as the appellant had already complied with the provisions of section 35F and that should be the adequate amount of compliance with the provisions of section 35F. It would be appropriate to remand the matter to the lower appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of Rule 16C of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Interpretation of Rule 16C of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to produce documents to prove compliance with Rule 16C, which allows the removal of excisable goods for testing without duty payment. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant cleared goods without obtaining permission, leading to a demand confirmation. Despite the appellant's submissions regarding the Revised Daily Stock Account and Chartered Accountant's Certificate, the authority did not accept them. The authority emphasized the importance of accurate reporting in ER-1 and ER-4 returns, noting the absence of proof to certify the difference in figures. The Tribunal criticized the authority for disregarding documentary evidence and not appreciating the appellant's business operations. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal due to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F, without delving into the case's merits. Citing a previous case, the Commissioner(Appeals) required the appellant to comply with section 35F again. The Tribunal, considering the High Court's decision, remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority for a merit-based decision without insisting on further pre-deposit, allowing both parties to present evidence.

Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original due to the appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F. Referring to a previous judgment, the Commissioner(Appeals) emphasized the need for continued compliance with section 35F, even in subsequent rounds of litigation. The Tribunal, following the High Court's ruling, directed the lower appellate authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits without requiring additional pre-deposit, granting both parties the opportunity to submit evidence.