Appellate Tribunal directs deposit for conflicting Cenvat credit issue

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 2.50 Lakh as collective duty within six weeks, based on conflicting decisions regarding the denial of Cenvat credit on Iron and Steel items used as structurals. Compliance with the deposit waived the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty, with recovery stayed during the appeal. The Tribunal aimed to balance conflicting precedents and ensure compliance while providing relief in terms of pending duty and penalty recovery.

---

---

Issues:
- Disposal of stay petitions involving denial of Cenvat credit on Iron and Steel items used as structurals.
- Interpretation of Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. case.
- Consideration of conflicting decisions and applicability of Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.

Analysis:
The judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI pertains to the disposal of stay petitions concerning the denial of Cenvat credit on Iron and Steel items used as structurals, with a total duty of Rs.3,59,513 confirmed against the applicant. The issue at hand, being identical, was addressed collectively. The Tribunal noted that the matter was covered by the Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. case. However, the appellant's counsel referred to a conflicting decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Visakhapatnam-II Vs. APP Mills Ltd., which did not follow the Vandana Global Ltd. decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.

Considering the conflicting decisions, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 2.50 Lakh as collective duty within six weeks, based on the overall facts and the decision in the APP Mills Ltd. case. Upon compliance with the deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty was waived, and the recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance the conflicting precedents and ensure compliance with the deposit requirement while providing relief in terms of the pending duty and penalty recovery.

---