Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (1) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition is directed against the orders dated 3rd April, 2014 and 14th July, 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") on the stay application filed by the petitioner as well as the modification application filed thereafter. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that against an order-in-original dated 19th September, 2013 passed by the second respondent confirming duty demand of Rs. 5,10,37,989/- with interest and equal amount of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner went in appeal before the Tribunal under sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... needs to be gone into detail, was of the opinion that the demand of duty within the limitation period from the date of issuance of notice needs to be secured by way of ordering pre-deposit on the said assessee and, accordingly, directed pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as against total dues of Rs. 3 crores under the order-in-original made in the case of the said assessee. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 461, to submit that similar treatment is required to be given to similarly situated persons and, hence, the Tribunal was not justified in discriminating against the petitioner and directing it to pre-deposit 10% of the entire amount. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n mind, viz., the undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal, while dealing with the stay application, has to consider the material that may be placed by the assessee in support of its plea of undue hardship and is also required to stipulate condition to safeguard the interests of the revenue. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, has rightly observed the issue involved is a highly debatable one and needs to be gone into detail and having found as a matter of fact that the assessee was not having any severe financial hardships has thought it fit to impose some conditions. It was submitted that in the light of the above decision of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above decision, in the impugned orders more particularly the order passed on the modification application, the Tribunal has not delved into the aspect as to whether the assessee in the case of M/s. Sudeep Pharma Ltd. was in any manner not similarly situated to the petitioner when it was the specific case of the petitioner that identical controversy was involved and that the petitioner was similarly situated to the said assessee. On a perusal of the show-cause notice issued in the case of the petitioner as well as in the case of M/s. Sudeep Pharma Ltd., a copy whereof has been placed on record, it is app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ces, adopting the same approach as in the case of Sudeep Pharma Ltd., the Tribunal ought to have directed predeposit of an amount of Rs. 8.5 lakhs. The impugned orders being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana (supra), therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. In the light of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 14th July, 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 3rd April, 2014 is hereby modified by directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance before the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal. Rule is made absolute according .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates