9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Impugning order dated 6-12-1994 passed by the Tribunal on petitioner's application for stay and waiver. Comprehensive Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing 'Pan Masala' and tobacco, was issued a notice by the Central Excise department for discrepancies and evasions following a surprise visit by Central Preventive Officers. The Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 3,68,718/- on 'Pan Masala' and Rs. 56,535/- on branded Zarda, along with a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The petitioner appealed to the Customs, Excise & Gold Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, seeking stay and waiver. The Tribunal, in its order dated 6-12-1994, accepted the petitioner's financial hardship plea and modified the pre-deposit condition. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- towards duty and Rs. 5,000/- towards penalty within two months, with compliance to be reported by 10-2-1995. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order through a writ petition, arguing that while the Tribunal acknowledged financial hardship, it failed to provide any valid judicial reason for imposing the deposit condition. The petitioner highlighted significant losses suffered, including a fire incident in 1991 that led to a standstill in business operations and non-recovery of insurance amounts. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should have considered Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act in such circumstances. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel emphasized the lack of reasons behind the deposit condition, while the Standing Counsel opposed interference, citing the Tribunal's discretionary relief based on subjective satisfaction. The High Court analyzed the submissions and the Tribunal's order, noting the absence of a justifiable link between the relief granted and the financial hardship pleaded by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the need for intervention to protect the petitioner's interests without causing harm to the opposite party. In a fair offer, the petitioner's counsel suggested modifying the Tribunal's order to require a cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and suitable security for the remaining amount. Considering the Tribunal's acceptance of financial hardship, the Court approved the suggested modification, directing the petitioner to comply within one month. Upon compliance, the Tribunal was to proceed with hearing the appeal on merits. The Court thus modified the Tribunal's order and disposed of the writ petition accordingly, instructing the issuance of a certified copy to the petitioner's counsel.
|
