Appellate Tribunal remands stay petition without additional deposit, Large Taxpayer Unit appeal successful.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, remanded a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The appellant, a Large Taxpayer Unit, had debited the duty amount in the Modvat Credit Register and appealed the Commissioner's dismissal for non-compliance. The Tribunal found the appellant's deposit through RG 23A Part II sufficient and rejected the need for additional cash deposit. The matter was remanded for reconsideration without requiring further pre-deposit, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount, interest, and penalty.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, the appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount, interest under Rule 57-I(3) read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and penalty under Rule 173Q of the Act. The Tribunal heard both sides and decided that the appeal itself could be disposed of as the issue was narrow. The appellant, a recognized Large Taxpayer Unit (LTU), had a factory in Calcutta with a confirmed demand of Rs. 10,23,034/-. The appellant debited this amount in the Modvat Credit Register and appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal stating that since the unit in West Bengal was not in existence, the appellant should have deposited the amount by cash. The Tribunal found that the appellant had already deposited the amount through RG 23A Part II and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration without insisting on any further pre-deposit.

The learned SDR argued that Rule 12A(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, favored the Revenue as it pertained to the transfer of credit from one unit to another unit of LTU. The unit in West Bengal was deemed non-existent since 2002, and therefore, the Commissioner's decision to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance was correct. After considering all submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had debited the amount and was recognized as an LTU. Consequently, the Tribunal found that insisting on a cash deposit would be retrograde and accepted the deposit made through RG 23A Part II as a pre-deposit. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a reconsideration of the issue and disposal of the appeal on merit without requiring any further pre-deposit. The stay application and the appeal were disposed of by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals).

---