TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y demand confirmed against the appellant - Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction fairly and reasonably. The appellant will get relief, if he succeeds finally in the appeal. - decided against the assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 706 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2012 - Sunil Ambwani And Aditya Nath Mittal,JJ. For the Petitioner : A. P. Mathur For the Respondent : S. P. Kesarwani, Sr. S.C. ORDER We have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi appears for the State respondents. In this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the appellant has raised a question of law as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT), New Delhi was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l.No.216 and that goods were supplied in the capacity of bonafide sub-contractor under the specified contract of Government of India. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals so far as the penalty is concerned and reduced it to Rs.1 lac. The CESAT considered the merits of the matter and did not agree with the contention that it is only a case of procedural lapse. In paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal discussing the issue, on the question of pre-deposit of the balance amount, interest and penalty, it held:- "6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the record. While Notification No.6/06-Ce (Serial No.91) exempts the goods produced in India if supplied against international competitive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty demand, interest and penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 7. Compliance to be reported on 6.9.2012." Shri Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had supplied the goods in international competitive bidding and thus he was entitled to exemption vide Notification No.6 of 2006 CE. The notification provided that the same goods, if imported into India would be exempted from customs duty under Exemption Notification No.21 of 2002 CUS, against international competitive bidding. The notification, however prescribes certain condition and one of this condition is to obtain a certificate from the designated authority, which in the present case is Directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE, the production of the essentiality certificate cannot be taken as a mere procedural lapse. The essentiality certificate was necessary for availing the exemption. We are not expressing any final opinion in the matter in as much as the CESAT has to still hear the matter and to examine it at the time of final hearing. Shri Mathur then submitted that even if prima facie case is made out, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to full or substantive part of demand. He relies upon Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) in which the principles relating to grant of stay pending disposal of the matters were reiterated as follows:- "Principles relating to grant of stay pending disposal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " In the present case we find that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion on the consideration of the prima facie case and found justification to direct deposit of 50% of the duty demand confirmed against the appellant. In our opinion the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction fairly and reasonably. The appellant will get relief, if he succeeds finally in the appeal. We do not find that this appeal raises any substantial question of law to be considered by the Court. However, in the circumstances of the case we accept the request of learned counsel for the appellant to extend the time for deposit and allow the appellant four weeks' time from today to deposit the amount. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|