- (1.) THE appeal by the assessee arises from a judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26 February, 2013. The assessee has raised several questions of law of which the following formulation will be sufficient for the disposal of the appeal: - - Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in demanding Rs. One lac in compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the application pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) specially when the Commissioner (Appeals) had dispensed with the condition of pre -deposit prior to remand?
(2.) AN order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise on 30 November, 2010 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 4,89,444/ - under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 together with a penalty of the like amount. During the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the requirement of pre -deposit was dispensed with. The Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 30 March, 2012 confirmed the demand. The Tribunal by its order dated 26 February, 2013 has remanded the proceedings back to the Commissioner (Appeals) but directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lac to protect the interest of the revenue. The application filed for review of the said order was rejected by the Tribunal on 15 July, 2013. The contention of the appellant before the Tribunal was that all the documents for proving sale of goods were on record and there was no element of service involved. The Tribunal observed that the Finance Act, 1994 does not have, as its object, to tax commodities but observed that it was the failure of the appellant to provide details and evidence that resulted in its defence being rejected. The revenue conceded to an order of remand but prayed that the appellant should make some deposit as an interim measure to protect its interest. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lac to protect the interest of the revenue.
(3.) THE principal submission which has been urged is that while remanding the proceedings, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue any such direction for deposit of the amount.;