2019 (5) TMI 1619 - AT - Central Excise

Requirement with the pre-deposit - Section 35 F (i) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - pre-condition of payment of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35 F (i) of the Central Excise Act 1944 not fulfilled - HELD THAT - The amount which need to be deposited as per the requirement of Section 35 F (i) comes to Rs. 19, 569/- which admittedly have already been deposited by the appellant - A proper compliance of Section 35 F (i) regarding pre-deposit have already been complied with by the appellant. Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on merits in this case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Duty clearance for export without payment of central excise duty
- Non-compliance with prescribed procedures for export clearance
- Show cause notice for central excise duty demand and penalties
- Adjudication by Assistant Commissioner
- Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) based on pre-deposit requirement
- Review of pre-deposit compliance by the appellant
- Decision on setting aside the order-in-appeal and remanding for consideration on merits

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant engaged in the manufacture and export of specific goods cleared consignments without paying central excise duty, meant for export, to a specific company. However, the goods were not indicated as export-bound on the invoices, and central excise duty was not paid. This led to the issuance of a show cause notice demanding duty payment and invoking penalties under relevant rules against the appellant and the recipient company. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty amount, imposed penalties, and directed interest payment, which the appellant contested through an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to the appellant's failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 35 F (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The pre-deposit amount was calculated based on the penalties imposed, and the appellant's partial payment did not meet the specified requirement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The appellant then approached the appellate tribunal challenging the order-in-appeal. The tribunal reviewed the records, noting the penalties imposed and the pre-deposit made by the appellant. It observed that the penalties confirmed against the recipient company could not be considered for calculating the pre-deposit amount required from the appellant. As the appellant had already deposited an amount equal to the required pre-deposit, the tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a merit-based review.

4. Consequently, the tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the pre-deposit requirement and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on its merits. The tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly, emphasizing the importance of meeting the pre-deposit obligations under the law for pursuing appeals in such cases.