2011 (8) TMI 173 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants stay, directs duty payment, restores appeal for further proceedings.

M/s. Jay Ambe Textiles Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad

The Tribunal allowed the stay petition, directing the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount of Rs. 1,64,416 and comply with the specified date. Upon ... Waiver of pre-deposit - Rule 96ZQ5 - Non discharge of duty liability on the goods for which the APC was provisionally fixed by the authorities - Lower authorities have confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under Rule 96ZQ, which is three times the duty liability confirmed. At this juncture, without going into merits of the case, we find that it would meet the ends of justice, if the appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount of duty involved i.e. Rs. 1,64,416/-. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 1,64,416/- On such compliance being reported, learned Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to restore the appeal to its original number in his records and dispose the same after following the principles of natural justice - Stay petition and appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Issues Involved:Waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed duty, appeal dismissal for non-compliance with stay order, non-discharge of duty liability, imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZQ.Analysis:The stay petition in this case sought waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,64,416 confirmed as duty demand, along with interest and penalty of Rs. 5,94,120 under Rule 96ZQ5 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the stay order, which required a deposit of Rs. 5,70,000 as penalty. The Tribunal found that the appeal could be decided at that stage as the issue was narrow. Consequently, the stay petition was allowed, and the appeal was taken up for decision.The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F provisions and the stay order, instructing the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 5,70,000. The main issue revolved around the non-discharge of duty liability on goods for which the APC was provisionally fixed by the authorities. The lower authorities confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty under Rule 96ZQ, which was three times the duty liability confirmed. Without delving into the case's merits, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the entire duty amount of Rs. 1,64,416 within four weeks and report compliance to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by a specified date. Upon compliance, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to restore the appeal to its original number, conduct proceedings following natural justice principles, and dispose of the case accordingly. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of based on the above directives.