2008 (5) TMI 676 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to common orders dated 18th July, 2006, 11th August, 2006, and 11th December, 2006 regarding Central Excise Duty demand and penalties.
2. Petitioner's financial hardship leading to dismissal of appeals for non-deposit of adjudicated amounts.
3. Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal directing deposit before hearing appeals.
4. Petitioner's contention of facing undue hardships and pending investigation related to consignments.
5. Prima facie view of the court on the correctness of petitioner's contentions.
6. Direction for the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for hearing the appeals.
7. Direction for expeditious adjudication of appeals by the authority.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh involved the disposal of writ petitions challenging common orders dated July and August 2006 and December 2006 related to Central Excise Duty demand and penalties. The Joint Commissioner (Audit) affirmed demands and penalties on the petitioner for diverting goods meant for export to home consumption. The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner, who directed deposit of 50% of the adjudicated amount, leading to dismissal of appeals for non-deposit. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed before the Appellate Tribunal, which directed a deposit before hearing the appeals.

The court considered the petitioner's financial hardships, noting the reversal of credit entry for two consignments and an FIR pending investigation for the third consignment. The court acknowledged the correctness of the petitioner's contentions, expressing a prima facie view that nothing might be found due and payable by the petitioner. The court emphasized that the FIR and pending investigation should have been considered by the lower authority.

In light of the circumstances, the court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Commissioner (Appeal) for hearing the appeals. The court aimed to ensure that the interest of justice and revenue could be adequately protected while expeditiously adjudicating the appeals within four months from the receipt of the order copy. Consequently, the court disposed of the petitions, providing clear directions for the further proceedings in the case.