2011 (3) TMI 1081 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Non-complianc of provisions of Section 35F - Availment of Modvat Credit on the basis of fake and fictitious invoices in the cases of other appellants similarly situate - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of M/s Roop Dyg. & Ptg. Mills 2011 (2) TMI 889 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD Revenue has taken into consideration entire case laws on the point and has modified the directions to deposit 20% in the cases of appellants similarly situate. Inasmuch as the same identical issue is involved in the present appeal we recall our order of dismissal of appeal modify the condition of deposit of 20% and grant unconditional stay. Further the appeal stand remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de-novo decision in the light of the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s Bhagwati Silk Mills 2011 (1) TMI 239 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-compliance with stay order.
2. Modification of the condition of deposit for hearing the appeal.
3. Granting unconditional stay and remanding the matter for de-novo adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order requiring the appellant to deposit 20% of the confirmed duty. The appellant had availed Modvat Credit based on allegedly fake and fictitious invoices, leading to the denial of the credit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the deposit condition under Section 35F. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order, citing an inability to deposit the required amount.

2. The advocate for the appellant referred to similar cases where the Tribunal had modified the deposit conditions and granted unconditional stays. Citing specific orders in cases of other appellants facing identical issues, the advocate requested the restoration of the appeal, modification of the deposit condition, and granting of an unconditional stay. The Tribunal, after considering the advocate's arguments and the Revenue's position, agreed to modify the deposit condition, grant an unconditional stay, and remand the matter for de-novo adjudication based on precedents in similar cases.

3. The Tribunal, in light of previous decisions in cases with similar circumstances, recalled the order of dismissal, modified the deposit condition, granted an unconditional stay, and remanded the appeal to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The judgment disposed of the application and the appeal in the manner outlined above, aligning with the principles established in related cases and ensuring fairness in the adjudication process.