2014 (9) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad on 11-12-2009. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,53,386/- and further directed imposition of penalty and interest in accordance with provisions of law. Appellant preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal) which was also turned down. Second appeal was preferred by the appellant to the Customs, Excise and Service Fax Appellate Tribunal. During pendency of appeal, appellant tendered application seeking stay of impugned order which was granted by the Tribunal subject to deposit of Service Tax amount. Appellant had already deposited sum of Rs. 43,260/- and further sum of Rs. 50,000/- came to be deposited after passing of the order by Tribunal. Appellant was thus liable to pay ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 20-7-2011 wherein this Court accepted contentions of appellant who was similarly placed and directed remittance of matter back to the Tribunal for consideration. The Division Bench has observed in the judgment that Tribunal is expected to take consistent view regarding pre-deposit when facts and circumstances are similar. Reliance is also placed on a judgment in the matter of Wardha Cola Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 490 (Bom.). 6. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that the appellant need not object to earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 14-5-2012 directing the appellant to deposit Service Tax amount. Appellant waited until dismissal of appeal and now he is agitating the order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Triveni Rubber and Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 7 = 1993 Indlaw SC 1021 (SC) wherein a demand of duty arrived at by assessing the normal production on the basis of the electricity consumption was upheld by the Supreme Court after examining the provisions of Rule 173E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. We have considered the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench dated 20 July, 2011. Before the Aurangabad Bench counsel for the assessee had pointed out certain decisions of the CESTAT where full waiver of deposit had been granted and it was his contention that the facts were similar. Moreover, it was sought to be urged that this Court has laid down that once the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench recorded was the submission of counsel for the assessee. On that basis, without entering any finding, even prima facie, at this stage the Division Bench remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. Ordinarily in a matter such as the present, a Division Bench of this Court would be inclined to follow the view taken by a coordinate Bench particularly at the interim stage on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. We are, however, not inclined to do so for the significant and as we have noted earlier in the table extracted herein above the total amount of duty in each of the cases is Rs. 11.51 Crores, Rs. 7.99 Crores, Rs. 1.01 Crores, Rs. 2.65 Crores, Rs. 1.97 Crores and Rs. 2.02 Crores respectively. Penalties in the like amount have bee....