9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2011 (11) TMI 285 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit - assessee had deposited 20% of the duty demanded availment of CENVAT Credit availed on fake/bogus/non-existent weavers invoices Held that - In the light of decision in the case of Bhagwati Silk Mills vs CCE Surat( 2011 - TMI - 203593 - CESTAT Ahmedabad) and since the current appellant is on the same footings therfore the order is set aside and matter is remanded back to adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh.
Issues: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, CENVAT credit availed on fake/bogus/non-existent invoices.
Issue 1: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.13,59,729 along with interest and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's representative submitted written arguments as none appeared for the appellants. The consultant highlighted that 20% of the duty had already been deposited via a Bank Guarantee, which was encashed by lower authorities. The Department's representative agreed that the matter could be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found the amount deposited by the appellant as sufficient to hear the appeal and decided to take up the appeal on merit. Issue 2: CENVAT credit availed on fake/bogus/non-existent invoices Upon reviewing the records, it was noted that the issue revolved around CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on fake/bogus/non-existent invoices. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where a similar situation led to the modification of the pre-deposit condition and granted unconditional stay. Citing the precedent set in another case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration in line with the principles of natural justice and the Tribunal's previous decision. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a re-consideration of the issue in light of established legal principles and precedents.
|
