2008 (8) TMI 714 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue appeal against Order-in-Original No. 18/2007 dated 31-12-2007 passed de novo, challenge on granting depreciation, compliance with remand order, imposition of fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, heard a revenue appeal against Order-in-Original No. 18/2007 dated 31-12-2007, passed de novo as directed by the Bench in Final Order No. 987/2007 dated 14-8-2007. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to re-determine the duty after granting necessary benefit of depreciation and other benefits as per law, considering export obligation fulfillment and entitlement for waiver of interest, penalties, and redemption fine.

2. The Commissioner, in compliance with the directions, worked out the depreciation on imported capital goods and confirmed a duty amount of Rs. 76,115/- and Rs. 27,600/- to be paid, along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The assessee complied by depositing the amount on 11-1-2008. However, the revenue challenged the Tribunal's direction to grant depreciation, arguing it was not justified.

3. During the hearing, the learned counsel relied on various judgments to support their argument, while the Departmental Representative reiterated the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that the directions given in the earlier Final Order were based on settled law and not challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue should have contested the order if they disagreed, as the issue was foreclosed by the earlier Tribunal rulings and judgments cited.

4. The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the Tribunal's order to grant depreciation and de-bond the goods, the grounds of appeal disputing the depreciation grant were not valid. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the earlier Commissioner's order had already been set aside by the Tribunal, and the consequential relief of de-bonding and releasing the goods was to be provided since the duty and penalty were already deposited by the assessee in compliance with the impugned order. The appeal was deemed meritless and rejected.