9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 733 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit of duty, Interest and Penalty - In respect of Sugar Syrup captively consumed on the ground that the syrup is further used in the manufacture of exempted biscuits which are cleared nil rate of duty - held that - Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the conditions of the stay order - waiving pre-deposit of dues the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty on Sugar Syrup captively consumed for manufacturing exempted biscuits.
Analysis: The applicant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.43,22,016/-, interest, and penalty related to the consumption of Sugar Syrup for manufacturing exempted biscuits. The contention put forth was that the Sugar Syrup is exempted under Notification No. 39/2011-CE dated 12.9.2011, and a request for a notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act is pending consideration by the Government. The applicant relied on a Tribunal stay order in another appeal, where pre-deposit was waived due to similar grounds. The Revenue argued that the Sugar Syrup is excisable goods due to the addition of citric acid, which enhances shelf life, justifying the demand made. The Tribunal observed that in a previous case, pre-deposit of duty confirmed on similar grounds was waived, considering the ongoing survey for the issuance of a notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the pre-deposit of dues was waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal process. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the appeal on its merits and dismissed it for non-compliance with stay order conditions. Given the waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal's merits after providing the appellant with a hearing opportunity. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of the appeal on its substantive merits.
|
