2011 (2) TMI 525 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Denies Stay Application for Interest Amount under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal dismissed the stay application for the interest amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants had previously filed ... Application for stay - Demand - While disposing of the stay application, it was specifically observed that “considering that the duty aspect has been paid in the manner indicated above, we direct waiver of pre-deposit of penalty during pendency of the appeal” - Mere non-quantification of interest amount does not entitle the appellant to file another application for stay - it was within the knowledge of the appellants when the stay application was disposed of that as to what could be the quantification of interest amount payable by the appellants - The communication of quantification of interest cannot give a new ground or material to justify fresh application under Section 35F of the said Act - Besides, the order dated 3-6-2010 whereby the said application No. 924/2009 was disposed merely waiving the requirement of the deposit of penalty and not interest - application is dismissed Issues:1. Stay application for interest amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the requirement of payment of interest under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants sought a stay in relation to the interest amount required to be deposited for compliance with the Act. The order for the payment of interest was passed by the adjudicating authority on a specific date, confirming the duty liability and quantifying the interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) further confirmed this order. The appellants had filed a previous stay application, which was disposed of, waiving the pre-deposit of penalty but not the interest amount. The appellants were aware of the interest liability calculation under Section 11A of the Act based on the duty amount quantified earlier. The communication of the quantification of interest did not entitle the appellants to file another application for stay. The Tribunal found that the mere intimation of interest quantification did not justify a fresh application under Section 35F. Since the previous order specifically waived only the penalty deposit requirement and not the interest, and this order was not challenged by the appellants, it was deemed too late for them to file another application regarding the interest amount. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the sequence of events, the parties involved, and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.