2016 (1) TMI 285 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - Differential custom duty on the goods imported i.e. Steam Coal - Held that - We have no hesitation in following the decision in case of Ganesh Yadav vs. UOI & 30 others 2015 (7) TMI 304 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT holding that amendment in Section 129E requiring mandatory deposit of 7.5% for hearing the appeal is applicable only to those appeals which are filed after 6/8/2014 i.e. date on which amendment of Section come into force. Moreover the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 366 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition against order confirming demand of duty and imposing penalty.
2. Differential custom duty on imported goods - Steam Coal.
3. Applicability of amendment in Section 129E for mandatory deposit.
4. Effect of amendment in Section 35F in the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a stay petition filed against an order by the Commissioner confirming a demand of duty and imposing a penalty amounting to &8377; 2,19,39,292. The issue revolves around differential custom duty on imported goods, specifically Steam Coal, which has been referred to the Larger Bench based on a previous case.

2. The counsel for the appellant cited a judgment by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Yadav vs. UOI & 30 others, which held that the amendment in Section 129E, requiring a mandatory deposit of 7.5% for hearing appeals, is applicable only to appeals filed after the specified date of 6/8/2014. This judgment establishes a clear timeline for the application of the amendment.

3. Conversely, the Additional Commissioner argued citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s Arjun Industries Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur. The Rajasthan High Court held that the effect of the amendment in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act should not be limited to appeals filed after 6/8/2014. This presents a conflicting interpretation of the applicability of the amendment.

4. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the Rajasthan High Court order was interim, while the Allahabad High Court judgment was final on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to follow the decision of the Allahabad High Court, especially since the matter had been referred to the Larger Bench. The Tribunal also highlighted that stay had been granted in similar cases, leading to the allowance of the stay application for the waiver of pre-deposit and the stay of recovery until the appeal's disposal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the issues raised and the careful consideration given to the conflicting interpretations of the applicable amendments in the respective High Court judgments.