Waiver of Pre-Deposit Granted under Section 11D for Sugar Incentive Scheme

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, granted a waiver of pre-deposit of duty under Section 11D for the Sugar Incentive Scheme. Referring to relevant case law, the Tribunal found that the appellant had established a prima facie case for waiver. It directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000 in compliance with the stay order, with the balance duty and penalty to be waived upon deposit within 8 weeks. Non-compliance would lead to vacation of the stay and appeal dismissal. The judgment emphasized the scope of Section 11D, excluding certain duties and penalties, and highlighted the importance of compliance with pre-deposit requirements.

---

---

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty under Section 11D for Sugar Incentive Scheme. Interpretation of Section 11D in relation to recovery of duty.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue involved the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty under Section 11D for the Sugar Incentive Scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that Section 11D applied to the recovery of the Sugar Incentive Scheme under Notification No. 130/83-C.E. and 131/83-C.E. The Tribunal referred to the case of Saraswati Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and others, where it was held that the introduction of Section 11D would invalidate the entitlement of the appellant under the Sugar Incentive Scheme. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions of Section 11D did not cover the levy of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, as per the case of Bripanil Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. It was highlighted that Section 11D does not cover offences, penalties, and confiscatory powers, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that a prima facie case for waiver had been made out. It was directed that a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000 had been made in compliance with the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal ordered that the pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty would be waived upon the deposit of Rs. 50,000 within 8 weeks, and the recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction would result in the vacation of the stay and dismissal of the appeal without prior notice. The compliance was to be reported by a specified date. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the interpretation of Section 11D in relation to the recovery of duty under the Sugar Incentive Scheme, emphasizing the conditions for waiver and compliance with the pre-deposit requirements.

---