Tribunal grants reconsideration on stay petition, directs appellant to deposit Rs. One crore within ten weeks.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's misc. application for reconsideration of the stay petition following a remand by the High Court. The Tribunal acknowledged the issue of Cenvat credit for iron and steel items, where the appellant had no malafide intent. However, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove financial hardship adequately. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. One crore within ten weeks, waiving the balance amount of duty and penalty during the appeal's pendency.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reconsideration of stay petition in light of remand by High Court
2. Availability of Cenvat credit for iron and steel items
3. Financial hardship claim by the appellant

Issue 1: Reconsideration of stay petition in light of remand by High Court
The appellant filed a misc. application for reconsideration of the stay petition following a remand by the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the issue involved the availability of Cenvat credit for iron and steel items used as supporting structures, which was decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench. The appellant's advocate acknowledged this decision during the stay order. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's plea of no malafide intent due to favorable decisions before the Larger Bench's ruling. The High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the case's merits and the appellant's financial condition.

Issue 2: Availability of Cenvat credit for iron and steel items
The Tribunal found that the appellant had not proven financial hardship, as they failed to provide profit and loss accounts or balance sheets. The appellant only submitted letters from banks showing substantial credit limits and outstanding balances. The Revenue contested the appellant's claim of financial hardship, citing increased business activities and duty payments. The Tribunal noted the lack of detailed financial information from the appellant and the Revenue's evidence of improved business conditions.

Issue 3: Financial hardship claim by the appellant
The appellant argued financial hardship before the High Court, emphasizing that the demand was within the limitation period except for one month. The Revenue asserted that the demand fell within the period allowed by the Central Excise Act, justifying the deposit requirement to protect its interests. The Tribunal reviewed the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision reducing a deposit amount in a similar case but found no prima facie case in favor of the appellant. Considering the legal issue against the appellant and the lack of financial difficulty in depositing the amount, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. One crore within ten weeks, waiving the balance amount of duty and penalty during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the misc. application, disposing of the stay petition accordingly and setting a compliance date for the deposit.

---