Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs Cce & St-Bhopal

[Arising out of order-in-appeal no. BPL EXCUS-000-APP-15-14-15 dated 30th April, 2014 passed by Commissioner C.E. (Appeals) Bhagya Bhawan, 178 MP Nagar, Zone-II, Bhopal 462011]

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE & ST-Bhopal Respondent

Appearance: Shri Z.U. Alvi, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent

Coram: Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Stay Order No.51709/2015 Final Order No. 51610/2015

Per: Rakesh Kumar

In this case, the appellant have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (appeals) against Deputy Commissioners order finalizing the provisional assessment by which the Deputy Commissioner besides demanding duty on finalizing of the provisional assessment had also demanded interest at the applicable rate on the differential duty in terms of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Against this order of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal to Commissioner (appeals) challenging the levy of interest under Rule 7 (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (appeals) vide stay order dated 19/2/2014 directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 lakh for compliance of the provision with the section 35F against their interest liability of Rs. 71,80,007/-. The appellant did not comply with the Commissioner (appeals) stay order dated 19/2/2014 but filed writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which was dismissed by Honble High Court vide order dated 16/4/2014. The appellant, therefore, filed an appeal to the Apex Court against High Courts order and the Apex Court also vide order dated 7/5/2014 dismissed the appeal but further time of 8 weeks was granted to them to comply with the directions of impugned order of the High Court. The appellant have paid the directed amount on 30/6/2014, i.e., within the stipulated time. However, in the meantime, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (appeals) was dismissed by him vide final order dated 30/4/2014 for non-compliance of the provision of section 35F.

2. Against this order of the Commissioner (appeals), this appeal has been filed along with stay application.

3. Heard both the sides.

4. Though the matter is listed for hearing of the stay application, after going through the facts of this case and hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the matter can be taken for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the with the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard for final disposal.

5. Both the sides are agree that the Commissioner (appeals) has decided the matter without going into the merits and only for non-compliance of the stay order dated 19/2/2014. However, both the sides agree that the appellant have subsequently deposited the directed amount of Rs. 20 lakh within the time limit stipulated in the Apex Courts order.

6. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (appeals) for decision on merits. The appeal as well as stay applications stand disposed off as above.

(Rakesh Kumar) (S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Ritu