2014 (12) TMI 583 - AT - Central Excise

Application made for modification of stay order passed earlier on the ground that on the subject matter there is a difference of opinion in Principal Bench at Delhi - Held that - A difference of opinion is not order at all. Further, we find that while passing the impugned order, this Tribunal had taken cognizance of the decision of Hon ble High Courts of Karnataka and Madras, wherein it had been held that if there is a default in payment of excise duty for more than 30 days, the appellant cannot avail the benefit of CENVAT Credit. The order of the Hon ble High Court prevails over any order of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the plea of the Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. However, in the interest of justice, we grant another 15 days time to the appellant to make the pre-deposit as ordered. Modification application filed by the appellant seeks to challenge the vires of the provision of Rule 8(3)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot go into the vires of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with pre-deposit order, interpretation of stay order, challenge to vires of Rule 8(3)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002

In the judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of the entire duty amount confirmed in cash within a specified period. The appellant, unable to comply within the given timeframe, sought an extension citing difficulties in arranging funds. The Tribunal considered a difference of opinion regarding the necessity of cash payment when duty payment was in default for over 30 days. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision of the High Courts prevails over Tribunal orders, denying the appellant's plea but granting an additional 15 days for compliance, with a warning of dismissal if there is further default.

Regarding the modification application challenging the validity of Rule 8(3)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Tribunal clarified its jurisdiction, stating that as a statutory body, it cannot adjudicate on the vires of statutory provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the modification application, emphasizing its inability to review the legality of the rule in question. The judgment highlighted the limited scope of the Tribunal's authority in such matters, reaffirming its role as a body bound by statutory provisions and unable to entertain challenges to the validity of rules under its purview.