9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals. The main contention of the AR is that the direction of pre-deposit is related to only one appeal as the amount of cenvat credit as mentioned in memo in respect of that appeal. The words the applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit as mentioned in the first para of Tribunal stay order make it clear that the stay order was passed taking into consideration of five appeals and not one appeal – there was no force in the submission of the Ld. AR that Tribunal should direct the assessee to deposit 50% of the total amount of duty in these cases - the amount involved in the first paragraph of the stay order is a clerical error, and therefore it is directed that the amount mentioned in the first paragraph as Rs.53,57,484 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other four applications. 3. In this context, the learned advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that Tribunal passed the order taking into consideration all the five applications involving entire amount of Rs.1.82 crores which is also mentioned in the respective impugned orders. Hence there is no need for modification of stay order. The amount mentioned in the first paragraph of the stay order is only a typographical error which may be corrected. 4. After considering the preliminary submissions of both sides, we find that the matter is required to be examined on ROM applications. 5. Ld AR submits that applicant is manufacturer of MS billets and TMT rods. They avail cenvat credit on various items of iron and articles namely MS ang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with all details directed to predeposit Rs.25 lakhs. It is his contention that amount of Rs.53,57,484/- as mentioned in the stay order is a clerical mistake which can be rectified. It is also contended that Tribunal while passing the instant stay order, had gone through the Chartered Engineer s certificate which is supported by detailed use of the items as mentioned in the said certificate. He relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Trichy Vs Madras Cements Ltd. 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.) and also relied upon unreported judgement dt. 13.12.2012 of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Trichy Vs India Cements Ltd. in CMA No.3101 of 2005 CMP No.16107 of 2005. 7. After hearing both sides, and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner in applicant s own case for the earlier period where credit was allowed on these items based on verification report. It is further noted that Tribunal has given a categorical finding that applicant placed the Chartered Engineers certificate on the detailed use of these items in the fabrication / support of the items as mentioned in the statement of the enclosed Chartered Engineer certificate. It is particularly noted by the Tribunal that there is no clear finding of the Commissioner on this issue. We have seen that the Tribunal passed the stay orders on identical issues after taking into consideration of the facts of each case. The main contention of the Ld. AR is that the direction of pre-deposit is related to only one appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
