2015 (10) TMI 1640 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Appeal dismissed for non complaince - Invocation of larger period of limitation - Held that - when during the relevant period, decisions of the Higher Authorities are in favour of the assessees, no malafide can be attributed to the assessee so as to invoke longer period of limitation. Otherwise also when an expert body like the Tribunal is classifying the product under Chapter 50 which is being reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it only reflects upon the disputable nature of the issue, in which case, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant. The appellant during the relevant period had filed all the returns claiming the classification under Chapter 50, in which case again no suppression can be prima facie attributed to them. As such, we are of the view that appellant has a strong prima facie case on limitation and there should be no direction to deposit any amount. In view of the above, we allow the stay petition unconditionally. Further, as the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) who shall decide the appeal without insisting on any predeposit. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with stay order
2. Classification of product under Chapter 38 or Chapter 50
3. Invocation of longer period of limitation
4. Prima facie case on limitation
5. Decision on merits without predeposit

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the confirmed demand of around Rs. 46,00,000. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the learned advocate regarding the financial condition and merits of the case. It was noted that the demand was raised from September 2008 to March 2009 by invoking a longer period of limitation. The Tribunal found that the appellant had a good prima facie case and allowed the stay petition unconditionally. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal without insisting on any predeposit.

2. Another crucial issue in the judgment was the classification of the product under either Chapter 38 or Chapter 50. The lower authorities had relied on a Supreme Court decision to classify palm stearin oil under Chapter 38, contrary to the appellant's claim of Chapter 50. The Tribunal highlighted that during the relevant period, its decision favored the classification under Chapter 50. It emphasized that when higher authorities' decisions are in favor of the assessee, no malafide can be attributed, especially in a disputable issue. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had filed returns claiming the classification under Chapter 50, indicating no suppression on their part.

3. The judgment also delved into the invocation of a longer period of limitation. It was established that the Supreme Court's decision had reversed the Tribunal's earlier decision, leading to the invocation of the longer period. However, the Tribunal reasoned that the disputable nature of the issue, along with the appellant's consistent filing under Chapter 50 during the relevant period, indicated no malafide intent. Therefore, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the limitation issue.

4. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the appellant's prima facie case on limitation, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent due to the disputable nature of the classification issue and the appellant's consistent filing under Chapter 50. This analysis led to the unconditional allowance of the stay petition and the remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal without any predeposit requirement.

5. Lastly, the judgment concluded by directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any predeposit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and disposed of the stay petition and appeal in the specified manner, ensuring a fair consideration of the case without financial constraints on the appellant.