2014 (9) TMI 445 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - CENVAT Credit - Whether the CESTAT was correct in law in passing conditional order on appellant s application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit, in spite of the undue hardship that the appellant would suffer by the wrong denial of Cenvat of credit contrary to well established law made out by the appellant - Held that - there is no scope to argue all the points before the Tribunal as the impugned judgment is also contemporaneous to the judgment and, as such, Tribunal had no occasion to deal with the contentions raised by the appellant and they are raised for the first time before us - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conditional order on appellant's application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit
2. Passing inconsistent orders on identical facts for different companies

Analysis:
1. The High Court admitted the appeal based on substantial questions of law. The first issue questioned the correctness of the CESTAT in passing a conditional order on the appellant's application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit. The appellant argued that the denial of Cenvat credit caused undue hardship, contrary to established law. The Court decided to hear and decide the appeal on the same day instead of keeping it pending. The appeal was against the Tribunal's judgment partially allowing the waiver of pre-deposit, which the appellant sought to be fully waived.

2. The second issue raised was regarding the inconsistency in the Tribunal's orders for cases with identical facts involving different cement companies. The appellant's Senior Counsel pointed out that the Tribunal had granted relief in a similar case on 28-10-2013, but due to the contemporaneous nature of the impugned judgment, those points were not argued before the Tribunal. The High Court, considering these circumstances, set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed a re-hearing, instructing the Tribunal to consider all points raised before the Court within four weeks from the date of the order's communication. The appeal was allowed in this regard with no costs imposed.

3. The Court's decision led to the disposal of all interlocutory applications related to the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing the issues raised by the appellant and ensuring a fair consideration of the matter by the Tribunal.