ST - CESTAT determining the pre-deposit amount at Rs.15 lakhs and declining to accept the plea of the Appellant that credit should be given to the sum of Rs.9.23 lakhs already deposited along with the returns in Form ST-3 for the period 2008-10 - Appellant has placed on record the copies of the returns filed for the said period co-relating the payment of Rs.9.23 lakhs; they have also produced the challan to show that it has deposited a further sum of Rs.5.77 lakhs on 16th May 2016 - since this is the sum fixed by the CESTAT as pre-deposit , there will be no requirement for the Appellant to make any further payment by way of pre-deposit - CESTAT to hear appeal on merits - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]

CX - Supplementary Invoices - Whether interest is leviable on the differential duty amount paid under supplementary invoices due to price increase - Matter has been referred to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2015-TIOL-292-SC-CX] and issue has not been answered till date and, therefore, the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of SKF India Ltd. 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX and International Auto Ltd. 2010-TIOL-05-SC-CX hold field and accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside accordingly, the Revenue appeal deserves to be allowed - However, if the reference is answered in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., it would apply to the present case also and in that case, right of the assessee and the revenue would be governed by the outcome of the judgment of the Apex Court - it is made clear that the issue having been referred to the Larger Bench, Revenue would not take coercive action against the assessee till the issue referred to the Larger Bench is decided - If the question is decided in favour of the revenue, the appellant Revenue would be at liberty to recover the amount - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 10, 11, 12]

CX - Raw materials and finished goods found in excess - Tribunal while allowing assessees appeal holding that since assessee had not taken cenvat credit on inputs, Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 is not applicable & therefore, goods in question are not to be held liable for confiscation u/r 15 of CCR, 2004 - moreover, when there is no finding given by Adjudicating authority as to whether assessee have violated provisions of section 11AC of the Act or not, provisions of Rule 25 of CER, 2002 cannot be invoked for confiscation of goods - Revenue in appeal before High Court. Held: If the ingredients of Section 11AC are not shown to be fulfilled, penalty u/s 11AC cannot be levied - Therefore, given the wording of Rule 25 of the CE Rules, the ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC have to be considered before determining the question of penalty - it is not in dispute that the SCN made no reference to Section 11AC and, therefore, there was no occasion to adjudicate the issue of imposition of the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act - No infirmity in the impugned order of the CESTAT - Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court [ para 9, 10, 13, 14]

Cus - Revocation of License - CESTAT observing that DRI had intimated Commissioner regarding offence vide their letter dated 7.10.2013/8.10.2013, however, SCN under Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013 had been issued on 17.6.2014 which is admittedly beyond a period of 90 days prescribed under the Regulation and, therefore, the Proceedings are time-barred & consequently Order of revocation of CHA Custom Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit was set aside - Revenue in appeal before High Court. Held: Time limit specified in Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013 is sacrosanct, i.e., the SCN had to be issued to the Petitioner within ninety days from the date of the receipt of the offence report - question of exclusion of the period during which the suspension of the licence continued is not contemplated in Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013 - If there are no grounds for revocation of licence then obviously the suspension cannot be maintained - no legal infirmity in order of CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 6, 8]