2014 (12) TMI 1381 - AT - Central Excise

Court dismisses Stay Petition for lack of amount under Section 35F, upholds consistency and fairness in Central Excise duty appeal.

The court dismissed the Stay Petition due to the absence of an amount to be stayed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was ... Valuation - demand of differential duty u/s 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - petition was dismissed as there is no amount which is required to be stayed as per the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of differential Central Excise duty under the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 as it applies to the period in question. An identical issue has been decided by this Bench in the case of M/S ACME CERAMICS AND OTHERS VERSUS CCE RAJKOT [2014 (3) TMI 164 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that prior to 01.03.2008, in the absence of any provisions for re-determining the RSP, in the form of prescribed rules, the Revenue authorities cannot re-determine the RSP under any of the provisions available to them. It has to be noted that there is no contrary view which has been taken by the Tribunal. There are no reason to deviate from such a view already taken - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Dismissal of Stay Petition due to no amount to be stayed as per Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Disposal of appeal based on narrow compass and previous Final Order.3. Demand of differential Central Excise duty under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The judgment addressed the first issue of the dismissal of the Stay Petition by the Revenue due to the absence of any amount to be stayed as mandated by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judges noted that the appeal itself could be disposed of as it fell within a narrow compass and was covered by a previous Final Order. Consequently, the Stay Petition was deemed liable to be dismissed.2. Moving on to the second issue, the judges heard both sides and examined the records to delve into the demand of differential Central Excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They observed that a similar issue had been previously decided by the Bench in the case of ACME Ceramics, which was followed in their Final Order dated 24-9-2014. Finding no reason to deviate from the established view, the judges set aside the impugned order and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.3. In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues involved, particularly focusing on the dismissal of the Stay Petition, disposal of the appeal based on previous orders, and the demand of differential Central Excise duty under the relevant provisions. By referencing past decisions and maintaining consistency in their approach, the judges ensured a fair and just outcome in the case at hand.