M/S. Core Indo Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Chennai-Ii
- CitationAppeal No. 38-40/2014 (M-II), dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, in a stay application arising from an appellate order dismissing appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit, will not waive the pre-deposit where the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for waiver, having regard to the appellants' availment of cenvat credit on input services without receiving the corresponding materials in their factory. Where the appellate authority has dismissed an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition without deciding the appeal on merits, the appeal is to be remitted to that authority, to be heard on merits after the appellant complies with the pre-deposit directed by the Tribunal and after the authority satisfies itself on such compliance, observing the principles of natural justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 38-40/2014 (M-II), dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
1. M/s. Core Indo Ispat Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant 2. M/s. Bajrangbali Trading Co. 3. M/s. S.L.O. Industries
Vs.
CCE, Chennai-II : Respondent
Appearance
Shri S. Sivaramakrishnan, Adv., for the appellant
Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR), for the respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
Date of Hearing/Decision: 20.03.2015
FINAL ORDER No. 40344-40346/2015
All the three applications are arising out of common order-in-original and common order-in-appeal, therefore, all are taken up together. These appeals were filed by the appellants against the OIA of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11.04.2014, dismissing their appeals for non-compliance of pre-deposit.
2. The Ld. Advocate submits that the Commissioner(Appeals) has ordered 50% of the duty confirmed and also 50% of the penalty imposed on the other two appellants. They filed the modification application on 13.02.2014 before the lower appellate authority but the same was not considered. He submits that on merit the case is in favour of them and he has not relied the case laws and even rejected the modification application on the ground that there is no power for the appellate authority to entertain modification of the order.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that since the appellants have not complied the pre-deposit order before the lower appellate authority, insisting of pre-deposit.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. On perusal of the records I find that the lower appellate authority ordered pre-deposit of 50% of duty amount and 50% of penalty confirmed in the adjudication order, which they failed to comply. On merits, the appellants availed cenvat credit on input srvices without even receiving such materials in their factory. Therefore, prima facie, the appellants have not made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty along with interest and penalty. The applicants are directed to make pre-deposit of the following amounts:-
SLO Industries Ltd. 4.70 lakhs Bajrangbali Trading Co. 1.00 lakhs Core Industries Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2.00 lakhs
Hence, the applicants are directed to comply the above pre-deposit within six weeks and to report compliance on or before 08.05.2015. Since the appellate authority has not decided the case on merits, it is appropriate that the appeal should be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals). Upon compliance, the appellants should produce the copy of the challan to the department within a week and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after satisfying himself on the compliance of pre-deposit shall hear the case on merits, after following the principles of natural justice. All the stay and miscellaneous applications are disposed of and all the three appeals are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals).
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
(R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free