Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2011 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 317 - HC - Central ExciseTribunal ordering for deposit while setting aside the order passed by Adjudicating Authority to seek fresh determination assessee submit that once the order of Adjudicating Authority is being set aside then no condition of pre-deposit could have been imposed by the Tribunal - Held that:-Tribunal has the jurisdiction to issue directions u/s 35C as it considers appropriate in its judicial discretion. See Shiv Sewa Sadan vs CESTAT (2009 - TMI - 33202 - Punjab And Haryana High Court). The order of direction to deposit Rs.80 lacs, is a direction in exercise of the powers conferred on the Tribunal u/s 35C of the Act, and not a condition to entertain the appeal u/s 35F. Allegations against the appellant are that of clandestine removal and undervaluation of goods demand of duty of 3.65 lacs apart from penalty and interest it is held that keeping in view the extent of liability which may arise against the appellant, direction to deposit the amount of Rs.80 lacs is not disproportionate. Thus, argument of appellant regarding amount being highly excessive is not tenable. However, Rs.20 lacs deposited by appellant shall be taken into consideration for considering the total deposit of Rs.80 lacs i.e. the appellant is required to deposit an additional sum of Rs.60 lacs. Bank guarantee - Supreme Court in CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1984 -TMI - 40039 - SUPREME Court) has held that the State is not run on the Bank Guarantees. Therefore, no permission is granted to appellant to furnish Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs.60 lacs Decided partly in favor of assessee.
|