2012 (4) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - assessee availed cenvat credit on duty paid sponge iron lumps and sponge iron fines credit denied on ground that said goods are not their inputs and they did not have any Registration for trading such goods appeal against the same denied by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of direction for pre-deposit Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing appeal has not recorded any finding on merit of the case. Therefore, we remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for passing an order afresh on merit without insisting any pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit of Cenvat Credit and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Entitlement of availing credit on received goods.
3. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with predeposit requirement.
4. Discrepancy in decisions of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on similar issues for different periods.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an application for waiver of predeposit of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.39,08,599/- and a penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of without the predeposit requirement, with the consent of both parties.

2. The case involved the appellant availing Cenvat Credit on duty paid sponge iron lumps and fines received from other manufacturers, amounting to Rs.39,08,599/- during a specific period. The Department contended that the appellant was not entitled to credit on these goods as they were not considered inputs and lacked the necessary registration for trading such goods. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and penalty, leading to the appeal.

3. The appeal was dismissed earlier due to non-compliance with the predeposit directive under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any findings on the merit of the case but dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit without insisting on any predeposit, ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing for the appellant.

4. An interesting aspect of the judgment was the discrepancy in decisions by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on similar issues for different periods. While the appeal in the present case was dismissed for non-compliance, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal on the same issue for a subsequent period. This inconsistency led the Tribunal to remand the matter for a fresh decision, keeping all issues open for consideration.