Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 625 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTAppeal against the stay order - non compliance of stay order - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to deposit 60% of the liability without considering the fact that under the Government scheme, the appellant was entitled for exemption from excise duty and also for the reason that the appellant company has been referred to BIFR under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - held that:- The appeal is a statutory right. The appellant has been deprived of his right of the appeal due to a precondition of deposit of 60% of the liability imposed by the order-in-original. While imposing the condition of predeposit, the Tribunal is required to examine prima facie merit of the appeal as well as the condition of the appellant. In the impugned order the Tribunal found that the appellant company was running under the financial loss and his request for rescheduling the payment of loan has been accepted by the banks. Even then the appellant was directed to deposit 60% of the liability which was a substantial amount for the appellant. In the financial circumstances of the company, it was an impossibility for it. In the meantime the company was also referred to Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction treating it as a sick company. The Supreme Court in Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India, [1998 (9) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] allowed full exemption from the liability to deposit precondition amount in appeal by the company, which was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction treating it as a sick company. Instead of 60%, appellant directed to pre-deposit 4 crores within 6 weeks.
|