9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty of Rs. 13,13,394/- which had arisen out of classification of the appellants' product under SH 6806.90 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant (assessee) had classified the goods under SH 6807.10 of the said schedule and claimed the benefit of 'nil' rate of duty prescribed under Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. In the said Stay Order, this Tribunal directed pre-deposit of Rs. 6,82,965/- being 50% of the duty demanded. The appellant debited this amount in their CENVAT account on 10-3-2008 and reported compliance to the Tribunal. Later on, the above two appeals along with two other appeals of the assessee came to be disposed of by Final Order Nos. 1345 to 1348/2009, dated 22-9-2009 [2010 (251) E.L.T. 389 (T)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest. The appellate authority directed the lower authority to "calculate" the period for levy of interest. The present appeal of the assessee is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order. 3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited decisions of this Tribunal recognizing debit in CENVAT account as a valid mode of pre-deposit. These decisions are also seen cited in ground No. A5 of the appeal. The learned counsel further submits that the pre-deposit made by the appellant by way of debit in CENVAT account was accepted by this Tribunal and accordingly their appeal was taken up for hearing on merits. The respondent did not raise any objection either at the stay stage or at the final hearing stage of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal and the latter recognized it as valid pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. At that time, no objection was raised by the respondent. Later on, when the assessee's appeals were taken up for final hearing on merits, the respondent did not raise any preliminary objection against the appeals being taken up for hearing on merits. Had it been the case of the respondent that the appellant had not made any valid pre-deposit and hence their appeal should not be considered on merits, this objection should have been raised before the Tribunal through the authorized representative of the department. But this was not done. There is no material to show that any objection of the above kind was raised by the department in Civ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
