2015 (1) TMI 1171 - HC - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - CESTAT failed to take into consideration the fact that a sum of ₹ 38,30,000/- was paid by the appellant during the course of investigation, has some merit. The CESTAT ought to have considered that the demand of differential duty of ₹ 65,53,233/- in respect of 48 bills of entry and further differential duty demand in respect of two other bills of entry, is thus secured at least substantially. - CESTAT can be modified with a direction that the appellant need not deposit anything over and above the amount already paid to the Department, but to secure the balance sum the appellant shall furnish a bank guarantee of any nationalized bank and which bank guarantee shall be of ₹ 29 lacs - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Consideration of appeal raising substantial question of law
2. Application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit
3. Payment made during investigation and consideration by CESTAT
4. Modification of CESTAT order regarding deposit and bank guarantee

Analysis:

1. Consideration of appeal raising substantial question of law:
The High Court, after hearing both counsels and reviewing the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), concluded that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The Court found that the application for stay had been considered by CESTAT based on relevant factors, and a prima facie case was acknowledged. However, the Court noted the appellant's argument regarding a payment made during the investigation, which was not fully considered by CESTAT.

2. Application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit:
The Court observed that CESTAT had not fully considered the fact that a significant sum was paid by the appellant during the investigation process. While acknowledging that a prima facie case was made out, the Court decided that the appellant should not be required to deposit any additional amount beyond what was already paid. Instead, the Court directed the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee from a nationalized bank amounting to Rs. 29 lacs to secure the remaining sum.

3. Payment made during investigation and consideration by CESTAT:
The Court agreed with the appellant's contention that the payment of Rs. 38,30,000/- made during the investigation should have been taken into account by CESTAT. The Court recognized that the demand for the differential duty in various bills of entry was substantially secured by the amount already paid by the appellant. Therefore, the Court modified the CESTAT order to reflect this consideration and directed the appellant to provide a bank guarantee to cover the balance amount.

4. Modification of CESTAT order regarding deposit and bank guarantee:
In light of the above considerations, the High Court modified the CESTAT order and directed that the appellant need not deposit any additional amount but must furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 29 lacs from a nationalized bank within eight weeks. The Court clarified that the observations and findings of CESTAT were tentative and would not bind CESTAT in the final decision of the appeal, keeping all contentions open. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded.