9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulak Raj Mullick, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Appellant in all these appeals is the same Company. It essentially seeks to rely on the Notification issued under the Central Excise Act granting exemption to units, which commenced commercial production before 31st March, 2010. There are various other conditions, which are attached with the availing of the benefit of the exemption Notification. Against the proceedings taken for recovery and assessing the appellant to central excise and also penalty, appellant preferred appeals before the Tribunal. It also made applications for waiver of pre-deposit. The applications were considered originally by the Judicial Member and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , appellant succeeds, he shall be entitled to return of the duty paid. 3. Resultantly, inasmuch as the appellant did not make the pre-deposit, which was ordered by the Tribunal and, in respect of which, stay was declined, since there was a non-deposit of the mandatory pre-deposit ordered by the majority of the Tribunal; the two appeals filed by the appellant against the assessment orders came to be dismissed. The final orders passed in the said appeals are impugned by way of Central Excise Appeal Nos. 6 of 2014 and 7 of 2014. 4. When these matters came up, we heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable, as the commercial production had not commenced prior to 31st March, 2010. He further contended that a perusal of the order passed by this Court in regard to Central Excise Appeal Nos. 11 of 2013 and 12 of 2013 would show that the application for stay of the order of the Tribunal was turned down and that order had become final as it had not been challenged before the Apex Court and, therefore, the appeals have become infructuous and, resultantly, the appeals against the final order must also fail as, without making the pre-deposit, the appeals are not maintainable. He further contends that the appeals can be maintained in law only if there are substantial questions of law and there are no substantial questions of law in these cases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation. We have already noticed the contentions of the appellant. We also note that this is a case, where the Judicial Member was of the view that there must be a complete exemption from making the compulsory pre-deposit. Still furthermore, appellant also drew our attention to the fact that the provision stands amended and, as things stand, in respect of appeals, which are pending, appellant needs to make only initial deposit of 7.5 per cent of the amount demanded. But, we cannot apply the said yardstick to a case, which already stood dismissed. 10. We are not unmindful of the interim order passed by this Court refusing stay; but, we also cannot overlook the fact that the appeals are left pending and the appellant was given an opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, of both the appellant and the respondent through their counsel, we dispose of these appeals as follows : If the appellant deposits a sum of ₹ 40 lacs in Central Excise Appeal No. 7 of 2014, read with Central Excise Appeal No. 12 of 2013, within a period of three months from today, the impugned orders will stand set aside and the appeals will be heard and decided on merits. Likewise, if the appellant deposits a sum of ₹ 5 lacs in Central Excise Appeal No. 6 of 2014, read with Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2013, within a period of one month from today, the impugned orders will stand set aside and the appeals will be heard and decided on merits. If the amount of ₹ 40 lacs is not deposited within the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
