Appellate Tribunal CESTAT grants waiver of duty & penalty pending appeal based on Supreme Court rulings.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed a case involving a discrepancy in orders passed by the Commissioner in similar cases. The appellants were granted a waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts based on cited Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal allowed stay applications, halting recovery until the appeals were resolved. The matter was scheduled for a final hearing, with the Commissioner directed to provide comments on the appellants' submissions. Member S.L. Peeran pronounced and dictated the judgment in open court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in orders passed by the Commissioner in similar cases.
2. Pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts.
3. Stay on recovery till disposal of appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dealt with the issue of discrepancy in orders passed by the Commissioner in similar cases. The appellants were required to pre-deposit duty amounts in two appeals as they had cleared goods through consignment agents, resulting in sales not at the factory gate but at the agents' premises. The Revenue assessed the sales from the consignment agents' premises under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants contested that the Commissioner had set aside a similar order against another party, M/s Mahalakshmi Profiles Ltd., on the same allegation. They argued that different views cannot be taken on the same issue for different parties, citing various Supreme Court judgments.

During the hearing, the learned JDR requested an adjournment to obtain comments from the Commissioner on the appellants' submissions. Upon reviewing the impugned order and the Commissioner's orders in the M/s Mahalakshmi Profiles Ltd. case, the Tribunal noted the common issue and the differing orders by the Commissioner. The appellants' prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts was accepted based on the cited judgments. Consequently, the stay applications were allowed, and there would be no recovery until the appeals were disposed of. The Tribunal scheduled the matter for final hearing on a specific date, with the Commissioner instructed to provide comments on the appellants' submissions in the interim. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in the open court by Member S.L. Peeran.

---