2014 (2) TMI 496 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of Excise duty - Confirmation of duty arose on the ground that the appellant as an 100% EOU, herein had cleared the goods to DTA based upon the positive achievement of the NFE during the period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, without having any permission from the DGFT authorities - Held that - Development Commissioner has not retrospectively granted any permission for DTA sales to the appellant for the period in question. In the absense of any authorization, we are of the view that the Department is correct in demanding the duty at the full rate on their total clearances done by the appellant to DTA - appellant needs to be put to some condition for hearing and disposing the appeals - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of Excise duty, interest, and penalties due to clearance of goods to DTA without permission from DGFT authorities.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two Stay Petitions seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Excise duty, interest, and penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority due to the appellant, a 100% EOU, clearing goods to DTA without permission from DGFT authorities. The appellant argued that they achieved positive NFE during the relevant period, as recorded by the Development Commissioner, KSEZ, who imposed a penalty for lack of authorization for DTA clearances. However, the Development Commissioner did not retroactively grant permission for DTA sales, leading to the Department's demand for duty on total clearances to DTA at the full rate. The Tribunal found the issue to be highly arguable, acknowledging the lack of authorization and the correctness of the Department's duty demand. Despite arguments on limitation by the appellant's counsel, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.1.50 Crores within eight weeks and report compliance for further order consideration.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the records before reaching a decision. The appellant's compliance with the deposit directive was crucial for the stay of recovery of the balance amounts involved until the appeals' disposal. The judgment emphasized the importance of authorization for DTA sales and the need for the appellant to fulfill conditions for the appeals' hearing and disposal. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of compliance with the deposit requirement and set a specific timeline for reporting compliance before the Deputy Registrar, ensuring a structured process for further proceedings and order consideration. The judgment's detailed analysis of the issues involved and the conditions imposed on the appellant demonstrated a balanced approach to addressing the legal complexities of the case.