9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount questioned in the appeal and non-deposit of the duties and penalties. 2. Projecting its grievance against the impugned order and giving the history of the case, the petitioner company says that Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise had passed an order confirming duty and imposing penalty of Rs.3 lacs under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on 15-07-98. An appeal was taken by the Company against this Order to the Commissioner who directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3 lacs towards duty and Rs.1.5 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty. The Company could not comply with this Order of the Commissioner which resulted in dismissal of its appeal vide Commissioner's Order dated 01-02-2000. The petitioner therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and valued at Rs.3532.56 were recovered from the factory premises. Having reasons to believe that the "metal slabs" had been manufactured by the petitioner company and cleared clandestinely without payment of Central Excise Duty, these were seized by the Central Excise Staff. Further scrutiny of the records of the Company revealed that the Company had supplied Zinc metal to number of parties. On search of the premises of these parties, Zinc Metal cleared clandestinely by the petitioner company without payment of Central Excise Duty was recovered and accordingly seized. The petitioner company was found to have evaded payment of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 6,42,859/-in contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. The respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersonal penalty of Rs. Two lacs on Sh. N.J. Durani Director of the 'Noticees'. (e) Interest is payable as laid down under Section 11AA & 11AB of the Act of 1944." 7. The Company filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central, Excise and Customs, Chandigarh seeking stay of the Deputy Commissioner's Order. The Commissioner (Appeals), disposed of the stay application observing as follows: - "I have considered the stay application and found that on merits the cases do not lie in their favour in as much as there was no denial of natural justice. The appellant had avoided to attend the hearings on the date as and when fixed by the Department and also on the date when they chose as per their convenience. They are directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. Faced with the situation that the writ petition of the petitioner company involved adjudication of disputed questions of fact as to whether or not the representative of the appellant company and the Company itself was negligent in prosecuting the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and whether the Company was not responsible for its counsel's omission to file an application for waiver of deposit of the penalties along with the appeal before the Tribunal, learned counsel submitted that the Company had deposited t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise had thus, on the basis of facts, appearing from the records, found the petitioner company responsible for evading Central Excise Duty in clandestinely clearing "zinc metal" from its premises to those from whose premises it had been later recovered and seized. The conduct of the petitioner company and its Managing Director, as is evident from the perusal of the orders of the authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not appear to be that of bona fide litigant who may be interested in seeking adjudication of its claims before the statutory forums. The conduct of the Company and its Managing Director, on the other hand, demonstrates their resolve to delay, on one or the other pretext, the payment of the duty and penalties, bes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n before the statutory authorities?, whether the litigant did not have the financial position to satisfy the statutory requirement of depositing the impugned penalty and duty before filing the appeals before the statutory Forums? 17. For all what has been said above, I do not find any case in favour of the petitioner company to direct fresh adjudication of its appeals before the authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944, merely on the ground that the duties and penalties stood paid after a period of four years, because payment of duties and penalties would not create any additional right in the petitioner company to seek re-adjudication of its appeal which had since failed because of the non-compliance of the statutory provisions regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
