M/S. Ramco Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. by stay application, the applicant has sought for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of rs.3,24,691.05 p and stay its recovery pending disposal of the appeal. shri m.p. devnath, ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has inter-alia submitted that in view of the decision of the apex court in eicher motors ltd. vs. union of indiacollector of central excise pune, vs. dal ichi karkaria ltd. reported in 1999(112) elt 353 (sc),the applicant is entitled to avail modvat credit which has already accrued to them.2. ld. jdr, shri j. singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that both the cases are distinguishable on the facts as the cases cited by the ld. advocate for the applicant relate to the availment of modvat credit on motor vehicle parts. moreover, the applicant has opted out of the modvat scheme and as such the issue involved is highly debatable.3. keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit 25% of the duty amount within 8 weeks from today. on deposit of this amount, recovery of balance duty amount shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. failure to comply with the order shall automatically result in dismissal of appeal without any further notice. matter to come up for reporting compliance and regular hearing on 6.9.2001.

Judgment:
1. By stay application, the applicant has sought for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs.3,24,691.05 p and stay its recovery pending disposal of the appeal. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has inter-alia submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaCollector of Central Excise Pune, vs. Dal Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported in 1999(112) ELT 353 (SC),the applicant is entitled to avail modvat credit which has already accrued to them.

2. Ld. JDR, Shri J. Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that both the cases are distinguishable on the facts as the cases cited by the ld. advocate for the applicant relate to the availment of modvat credit on motor vehicle parts. Moreover, the applicant has opted out of the modvat scheme and as such the issue involved is highly debatable.

3. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit 25% of the duty amount within 8 weeks from today. On deposit of this amount, recovery of balance duty amount shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Failure to comply with the order shall automatically result in dismissal of appeal without any further notice. Matter to come up for reporting compliance and regular hearing on 6.9.2001.