9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexure P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") holding that the appeal of the petitioner would be dismissed automatically without any further hearing in the case on account of non-deposit of an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores by M/s Vishwakarma Alloys Ltd. (M/s VAL) as directed in the impugned order dated 9.2.2012 and order dated 8.5.2012 (Ann. P-4) directing the petitioner to deposit the whole amount of penalty imposed by the respondent-Commissioner. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are that respondent No.1 levied duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As per the said Section, the goods specified in First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 3.9.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 be not imposed upon it. It was also mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner and other dealers have only supplied invoices to M/s VAL and have not sold the material. The reply to the said show cause notice was filed. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 8.5.2010 imposed penalty of Rs. 7,98,000/-, i.e. equal to the amount of credit passed to M/s VAL. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner as well as M/s VAL and various other dealers and transporters filed appeals before the Tribunal. Along with the appeals, stay applications were also filed. The said applications came up for hearing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was not justified in passing order on miscellaneous application on 8.5.2012 directing the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount imposed on them by reviewing its earlier order. 7. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find that the order dated 8.5.2012 requiring the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount imposed on them by reviewing the order dated 9.2.2012 exempting the petitioner from pre-deposit is not justified. 8. In CWP No. 8433 of 2012 (M/s Victory Impex v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana and another), order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the Tribunal was under challenge to the extent it provided for automatic dismissal of the petition the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
