2005 (11) TMI 400 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of Tribunal's Stay Order
2. Application of Clause 12G of the Finance Bill, 2005
3. Consideration of subsequent developments regarding the Finance Bill becoming an Act
4. Applicability of sub-section (5) of Section 88 in the Finance Act for determining pre-deposit under Section 35F

Analysis:

1. The applicant sought modification of the Tribunal's Stay Order, which directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 25.00 lakhs out of a total demand of Rs. 1,22,46,357. The Tribunal initially rejected the modification application, citing the lack of a strong prima facie case in favor of the applicant. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the modification application on its merits and pass appropriate orders.

2. The applicant filed a modification application referencing Clause 12G of the Finance Bill, 2005, proposing instalment payments for wrongly availed credit of AED prior to 1-4-2000. However, the Tribunal rejected this application, stating that the Finance Bill proposal did not impact the order passed under Section 35F.

3. Following the enactment of the Finance Bill into an Act, the applicant sought modification of the Stay Order considering the new statutory provision. The applicant argued that since other assessees could pay back wrongly availed credit in instalments, they should not be required to deposit Rs. 25.00 lakhs upfront. The Tribunal was urged to either eliminate the pre-deposit requirement or allow payment in 36 instalments.

4. The Tribunal found the applicant's contention regarding the application of sub-section (5) of Section 88 in the Finance Act for determining pre-deposit under Section 35F unacceptable. The Tribunal noted that the duty demand was confirmed earlier, and the applicant had the option to pay before the introduction of the Finance Bill, 2005, to avoid the pre-deposit requirement. As the applicant did not choose to avail of this facility earlier, the Tribunal declined to modify the Stay Order but granted an additional four weeks for compliance.

5. Failure to comply with the revised deadline would result in the dismissal of the appeal itself, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Tribunal's directives within the specified timeframe.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the modification of the Stay Order, the impact of the Finance Bill becoming an Act, and the Tribunal's decision regarding pre-deposit requirements under Section 35F.