Whether consistency to maintained in ordering pre-deposit in similar cases?

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2805

Case:-SRJ PEETY STEELS PVT. LTD. VERSUSUNION OF INDIA

Citation:- 2015 (323) E.L.T. 261 (Bom.)

Brief Facts:-By consent, the appeal is heard finally forthwith. The appeal has been preferred by the original assessee against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT” for short), Mumbai, dated 28-2-2011, on an application for an interim relief. The CESTAT has directed the assessee to deposit 50 per cent of the amount of duty demanded along with 25 per cent of the penalty imposed, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. In the event the assessee complied with the order, there would be waiver of condition of pre-deposit and stay to the recovery of balance amount of duty and penalty.

Appelants Contention:-Mr. Godsay, the learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out several decisions of the CESTAT, wherein, the CESTAT has granted full waiver of the deposit, as an interim relief, where the facts are similar to the present case. These decisions have been rendered in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd.v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, reported in 2011 (263) E.L.T. 606 and Mithulal Gupta v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik,[Appeal Nos. E/676 and 677 of 2009, with Stay Applications Nos. E/Stay-977 and 978 of 2009 = 2011 (270) E.L.T. 231 (Tribunal)].
The learned Advocate for the appellant further pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court in Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd.v. Union of India, reported in 2009 (3) Bom. C.R. 306 = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 490 (Bom.), has observed that once the Tribunal has granted full waiver in similar cases, it would not be proper to take a different view and deny waiver of pre-deposit. According to Mr. Godsay, the Division Bench has not denied the waiver of pre-deposit and, instead, has directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law. He, therefore, contends that the matter ought to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh, after considering the aforesaid orders.

Respondents Contention:-The respondent has submitted that no substantial question of law has been raised by the appellant and that the CESTAT has not committed any error in directing the appellant to deposit a part of the duty and penalty.

Reasoning of Judgement:-In the view of tribunal, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal, as the Tribunal should take a consistent view regarding pre-deposit when the facts and circumstances in the matters before it are similar. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will take into consideration its earlier orders in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. andMithulal Gupta, Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding whether the appellant herein is entitled to waiver of pre-deposit. The appellant to appear before the Tribunal on 22-8-2011.The appeal is allowed, accordingly. No orders as to costs. Civil Application stands disposed of.

Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that the tribunal should take a consistent view regarding pre-deposit when the facts and circumstances of the cases are similar. Therefore, in the given case which is similar to the Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd.and Mithulal Gupta, Bhavshakti Steelmines Pvt. Ltd. wherein the tribunal have granted the complete waiver of pre-deposit, it was considered as apt to remand the matter back to the tribunal for deciding it afresh in light of the decisions taken by it earlier.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2805

Post a Comment

Query