2013 (12) TMI 456 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of stay application Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - It is apparent that where an exemption from whole of duty of excise has been granted absolutely, the manufacturer of such excisable goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods - The reading of section 5A (1A) would make us understand that where there is any other duty leviable such as Tariff rate, the assessee has to avail exemption notification granted absolutely - both the notifications have granted exemption without any condition - Notification No.58/09 granted whole exemption which is in consonance with the wordings of Section 5A (1A) of the Act the applicant failed to make a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty assessee directed to make a pre-deposit of Rupees one Lakh as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal partial stay granted.

Issues:
1. Restoration of stay petitions dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Dismissal of EH application for hearing stay petition.
3. Appeal against Order-in-Original No.43/2011-CE and Order-in-Appeal No.137-141/2012.
4. Waiver of predeposit of duty.
5. Interpretation of Section 5A (1A) of the Central Excise Act.
6. Direction for predeposit and stay of recovery during appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the common issue of restoration of stay petitions dismissed for non-prosecution. The applications were filed for this purpose, and after considering submissions from both sides, the order was recalled, and all stay applications were restored to their original numbers. Miscellaneous petitions filed by the applicants were allowed.

2. The EH application for hearing the stay petition filed by one of the parties was dismissed as infructuous since the stay petitions were being taken up for disposal.

3. The appeal involved challenges against Order-in-Original No.43/2011-CE and Order-in-Appeal No.137-141/2012. The parties had differing interpretations and arguments regarding the demands of duty and the modifications made by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The applicants filed applications for waiver of predeposit of duty along with interest, listing specific amounts for different appeals. The advocate highlighted discrepancies in the quantification of demands and argued for the eligibility of cenvat credit on capital goods.

5. The interpretation of Section 5A (1A) of the Central Excise Act was crucial in determining the applicability of exemptions granted under different notifications. The advocates for both parties presented their arguments based on the wording of the section and relevant notifications.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed specific predeposit amounts for the parties involved, with instructions for compliance and reporting. The predeposit amounts were set to waive the balance amount of duty and interest during the pendency of the appeal, ensuring a stay on recovery.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the legal judgment, providing insights into the arguments presented by the parties and the Tribunal's decisions based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.

← Previous Next →