Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. S.N.A.G. Industries Ltd. vs Cce Chandigarh on 4 May, 2001
ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. This stay application arises out of appeal No.E/442/2001-NB filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 19.10.2000 vide which he dismissed their appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excises Act for having failed to comply with the terms of the stay order dated 19.6.2000 requiring them to make pre-deposit of Rs.4 lakhs within a period of 15 days from the date of order.
2. The appellants have sought in the present stay application waiver of the entire pre-deposit amount for the purposes of hearing of their appeal on merits. The learned counsel has contended that the deemed modvat credit of the disputed amounts was rightly taken by the appellants in terms of Notification No.58/97-Ce(NT) dated 30.8.97 on the basis of the invoices during the period 3.1.98 to 26.2.98 in question on the inputs as duty in respect thereof stood already discharged by the manufacturers under Section 3A of the Central Excises Act. The appellants had prima facie case but the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly failed to take note of all these facts, while disallowing the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount in dispute.
3. On the other hand, the learned SVR has contended that the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was never challenged by the appellants before any higher forum and as such had attained finality. Therefore, the appellants were duty bound to comply with the same and for having failed to do so, their appeal had been rightly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). They have no prima facie case.
4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
5. The question as to whether the deemed modvat credit had been rightly availed by the appellants on the inputs in terms of the notification referred to above and whether their manufacturers had paid the duty thereon, requires marshalling of the facts and scrutiny of the record. The deemed modvat credit of the disputed amount had already been taken and utilised by the appellants. Their appeal had not been disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) had the discretion to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount involved in total in part or absolutely not. The validity of the stay order passed by him cannot be questioned before us in the present appeal being non-appealable order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellants under Section 35-F of the Act for non-compliance with his stay order cannot be prima facie said to be illegal.
6. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue involved, the interest of justice, in our view will be met for the purposes of hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal, if the appellants are directed to make pre-deposit of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Therefore, we order accordingly. But in case the appellants failed to make pre-deposit of this amount within the stipulated period, their appeal will be liable to be dismissed without further notice to them.
7. To come up for reporting compliance on 19/6/2001