- (1.) The appellant is before us challenging order dated 28-7-2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 2.00 crores within a period of 12 weeks as a pre-condition to the hearing of its appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the statute does not prescribe pre-deposit of any particular amount as a pre-condition to the hearing of an appeal. The Tribunal is, therefore, required to decide the application for stay by considering whether the assessee has a prima facie case or suffers from any hardship. The impugned order directing, the appellant to pay Rs. 2.00 crores is not only harsh but deprives the appellant of the right to an appellate hearing. It is also contended that as the appellant has made out a prima facie case, as recorded by the Tribunal, the amount demanded as pre-deposit may be suitably reduced. It is also pointed out that after filing of the appeal, provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') have been amended and a provision for pre-deposit of 7.5% of the amount demanded by the Revenue has been added. The order passed by the Tribunal may, therefore, be modified and the appellant may be allowed to deposit 7.5% of the amount of duty demanded by the Revenue.
(2.) Counsel for the Revenue submits that amendment of Section 35F of the Act does not apply to the appellant as the appeal has been filed prior to the amendment of provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal even otherwise has considered the entire gamic of the controversy and granted adequate relief to the appellant. The appellant's prayer for further reduction of the amount may, therefore, be rejected.
(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire paper book including the impugned order. The appellant is a manufacturer of commercial plywood, etc. The DGCEI conducted a search of the appellant's premises as well the premises of other businesses and eventually raised a demand of Rs. 7.58 crores with penalty and interest. The appellant filed an appeal accompanied by an application for stay. The learned Tribunal after holding that the appellant has a prima facie case, has vide the impugned order held as follows:- "11. As such, we are of the view that the appellant, M/s. Shyam Salona Plywood is required to be put to some terms of deposit. The said applicant has not pleaded any financial hardships and has not drawn our attention to any evidence on record in support of their poor financial condition. As such, taking into account the facts that the said applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 45 lacs during the course of investigation, we direct them to deposit a further amount of Rs. 2 crore within a period of 12 weeks from today. Subject to the said deposit, the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty along with the penalties imposed upon the other applicants shall stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals. Matter to come-up for ascertaining compliance on 7-11-2014.";