CESTAT upholds Commissioner's decision on pre-deposit amount; Revenue's appeals dismissed

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus GIRDHARILAL SUGAR ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus GIRDHARILAL SUGAR ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD. - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 350 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Revenue's challenge to impugned orders setting aside adjustment of pre-deposit amount towards duty claim.

Analysis:
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, the issue of challenging impugned orders related to the adjustment of pre-deposit amount towards duty claim was addressed. The Member noted that since the issue in both appeals was common, they were heard together. Despite the absence of the respondents during the hearing, the appeals were decided on merits after hearing the learned JDR.

The Revenue had contested the impugned orders where the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the orders-in-original and set aside the adjustment of the pre-deposit amount towards the duty claim of the respondents. The learned JDR argued that the pre-deposit amount could be legally adjusted against the outstanding duty amounts unpaid by the respondents. However, the Member disagreed with this contention. It was observed that there was no confirmed duty demand against the respondents, as the duty demand was subjudice since the respondents had challenged the order confirming the duty before the Tribunal. The Member referred to legal precedents such as National Steels v. UOI, CCE v. Instrumentation Ltd., and CCE v. Indian Shaving Products Ltd. to support the decision that no adjustment of the pre-deposit amount could be made while the duty demand was subjudice.

Based on the above analysis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have rightly applied the legal principles from the mentioned cases and reversed the orders-in-original of the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) were deemed valid and upheld. As a result, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the decision regarding the adjustment of the pre-deposit amount towards the duty claim of the respondents.