2015 (11) TMI 762

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel appearing for the respondents. 3. As against the order in original bearing No.01/2012 dated 13.12.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, demanding a duty of Rs. 519.88 lakhs under the provisions of section 72(1)(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the years 2000-2001 to 2005-2006, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Alongwith the appeal, the assessee moved an application for stay. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order on 8.5.2013 in the stay petition directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the amount demanded, on or before 7.6.2013. Without challenging the said order before the CESTAT,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel is correct on facts. The Tribunal did not set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter. The Tribunal modified the pre-deposit condition imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the appeal. The order of the CESTAT, impugned in this appeal, can be treated as an order of remand only if the stay petition has been directed to be re-heard. Since the condition imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the grant of stay was modified by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was obliged to direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to take up the appeal and decide on merits. Therefore, the first contention lacks merit. Hence, it is rejected. 8. Insofar as the second contention is conc....