THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CEA No.115 of 2010 Dated:23.08.2010 Between: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax. …Appellant and M/s.Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No.115 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The controversy is in a narrow compass in this appeal. Therefore, though the interlocutory matter at the instance of the respondent is listed, with the consent of both the Counsel, we dispose of the appeal itself. Respondent is a manufacturer of drug formulations falling under Chapter No.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have necessarily been provided a Customs Private Bonded Warehouse License and they also executed Form B-17 Bond to observe all the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority, namely, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV, initiated proceedings and issued a show cause notice, dated 06.10.2008, proposing to levy central excise duty penalty and interest under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for alleged contravention of paragraph 8(3)(iii) under notification No.22/2003-CE, dated 31.03.2003. The gravamen of the allegation is that the respondent removed non-duty paid goods as defective goods without following the necessary preconditions under the said notification. The respondent submitted explanation on 17.09.2008, inter alia, contending that they cleared defective/rejected goods under AR 3 A to the original suppliers, and that the same has been duly certified by the Range Officials at the receiving end. After adjudicating the matter, the proposed show cause notice levy was confirmed. Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the respondent preferred an appeal, being E/237/2009, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore. In an application for stay of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal passed orders on 22.06.2009 directing the Revenue not to take any coercive measures and observed that the interim stay shall continue even after lapse of 180 days. The same is assailed in the appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act. This Court, while admitting the appeal, suspended the impugned interlocutory order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent moved CEA.M.P.No.243 of 2010 for vacating the interim order. The Counsel for the rival parties made elaborate submissions, though it is unwarranted. With their assistance, we have perused the notification No.22/2003-CE, dated 31.03.2003. In view of the same, while we are not inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the orders of stay granted by the learned Tribunal cannot be continued in absolute terms as there is a contentious issue as to whether the respondent returned the goods to the manufacturer or not. The interest of the revenue as well as the assessee would be subserved if we direct the respondent to furnish unconditional bank guarantee for a sum of rupees one crore within a period of four weeks, subject to which, the interim order passed by the Tribunal shall continue. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. We also deem it proper to request the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 23.08.2010 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow. B/o. vs