2004 (12) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Appeal No. E/1418/2004
2. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in Appeal No. E/303/2002
3. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty amount in Appeal No. E/1418/04
4. Challenge of demands of duty in Appeal No. E/1418/2004
5. Challenge of penalty in Appeal No. E/308/2002
6. Challenge of ACP orders in Appeal No. E/567/2004 and E/348/2001

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal No. E/1418/2004:
The appellant filed an appeal against the payment of duty with the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, which was later withdrawn and refiled with the Chennai Bench. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned after evidence of the speed post receipt was presented, indicating the filing to the Asst. Registrar. The delay was considered justified, and the appeal was accepted.

Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery in Appeal No. E/303/2002:
Two miscellaneous applications in Appeal No. E/303/2002 seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amount were disposed of as infructuous after the appeal was taken up for final disposal.

Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery in Respect of the Duty Amount in Appeal No. E/1418/04:
An application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty amount in Appeal No. E/1418/04 was granted, allowing the appeal to proceed without the need for pre-deposit.

Challenge of Demands of Duty in Appeal No. E/1418/2004:
The demands of duty challenged in Appeal No. E/1418/2004 were related to show cause notices issued before the date of the first ACP order by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found these demands unsustainable as they were not based on a valid order determining the ACP, leading to the demand of duty being set aside.

Challenge of Penalty in Appeal No. E/308/2002:
The penalty imposed on the appellant, associated with the demands of duty challenged in Appeal No. E/1418/2004, was also set aside by the Tribunal. Both the duty and penalty were covered by the same set of show cause notices, leading to the penalty being deemed unsustainable.

Challenge of ACP Orders in Appeal No. E/567/2004 and E/348/2001:
The contentious appeals were related to challenging the Commissioner's ACP orders for different periods. The Tribunal found that the ACP orders were unsustainable in law as Rule 5 was erroneously applied, and the ACP needed to be determined afresh for the relevant periods under Rule 3(3) of the ACD Rules. The effective dates of changes in parameters were clarified, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand for the Commissioner to redetermine the ACP of the factory.