9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Annexure A-9) passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT) wherein vide common order, the appeals of the Director of the Company, M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. were restored without payment of necessary pre-deposit under the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1954 which was waived off vide order dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure A-10) and thereafter allowed on merits on 01.04.2019 (Annexure A-11). 2. In our considered opinion, the following question of law would arise for consideration: "Whether the Ld. CESTAT had erred in passing the order dated 27.08.2018, Annexure A-7 restoring the appeal of the respondent which was earlier dismissed for want of mandatory pre-deposit, ignoring the fact that the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Cess Rs. 1,06,568/-) from M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Plot No. 37B, Sector 6, Faridabad under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iii) I confirm and order recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 9,28,37,834/- (BED Rs. 7,26,56,307/- + NCCD Rs. 98,90,235/- + ADD Rs. 75,87,280/- + E. Cess Rs. 18,02,674/- + S&H E. Cess Rs. 9,01,338/-) from M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Plot No. 37B, Sector 6, Faridabad under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iv) I confirm and order recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 51,37,54,251/- (BED Rs. 38,73,38,299/- + NCC Rs. 5,52,28,601/- + ADD Rs. 4,28,84,243/- + ADE Rs. 1,61,28,485/- + E. Cess Rs. 1,00,31,593/- + S&H E. Cess Rs. 21,43,030/-) from M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Plo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only) on Shri Atul Kumar Singh, Director of M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Faridabad under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. (ix) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) on Shri Rajiv Kumar Singh, Director of M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Faridabad under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002." 4. The Directors, namely, Shri A.K. Singh and Shri R.K. Singh, respondents herein along with the company and other employees preferred appeals and stay applications bearing No. E 2712/2011, E 2714, E 2715, E 2716, E 2717 and E 289/12. Vide order dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure A-3), directions were issued to the company to deposit 50% of the duty component assessed which had been fixed from the date of recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 (Annexure A-7). A condition was put that if the amount is deposited with the Tribunal, it will restore and hear the appeal, otherwise the appeal would stand dismissed. The amounts were apparently never deposited and therefore, the order effecting the dismissal of the appeal on an earlier occasion remained in force dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure A-5) read with order of the Apex Court. It has been pleaded by the Revenue that review petition was also dismissed. 6. Thereafter applications for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application were filed before CESAT along with the request for restoration of the appeal on behalf of the respondent-Directors taking a misconceived ground that no specific order had been passed against them a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion cannot be alleged against the applicants and therefore the charge against the applicants could not be maintained without cross-examining the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue. Resultantly, on 01.04.2019 (Annexure A-11), the said Tribunal allowed the appeals on merits rejecting the case of the Department that the appeals were already dismissed on account of non-compliance of the stay order and the order of the Tribunal merged with the order of the High Court. Keeping in view the fact that earlier order dated 27.08.2018 had not been challenged, the objection was overruled and the cases were decided on merits. 9. Thus, from the above sequence of events, it would be clear that the applicants-Directors themselves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay also which had been done by the Tribunal. The review application having been dismissed also by the Apex Court, the stay applications were misconceived as apparently the respondents-Directors had been playing the game of hide and seek with the Department and by misusing the process of the Court has wrongly been granted indulgence by the Tribunal.
11. Resultantly, the present appeals are allowed. We do not impose any cost upon the respondents since initially, at one point of time, counsel had put in appearance on 15.03.2023 but thereafter, did not put in appearance on 17.07.2023 when the matter was taken up and even today, has not put in appearance on their behalf. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
