TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach of the writ petitions. Petitioners are manufacturing bars, rods, angles, joist, channels, wire rods, etc., falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, Tariff Act) and availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988. Penalties were imposed for contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules). In case of petitioner-Usha Udyog- duty of Rs. 74,87,767.35 and a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed. In respect of petitioner-RHL Profiles duty of Rs. 92,34,305/- and a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed. Such impositions were levied on the basis of adjudication orders. Central Excise officials visited the factory premises of petitioner Usha Udyog and on verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on record. If the materials and evidence are considered in their proper perspective, the demands would not stand. Additionally, it was pleaded that financial conditions of the petitioners would not permit liquidation of even a part of the demand. CEGAT directed deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 60 lakhs respectively. It was observed that a prima facie case of levies was made out and plea of financial stringency was not established. 4.Learned Counsel for petitioners reiterated their stand before the CEGAT. It was submitted that the ingredients requisite for grant of stay i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss existed. Direction of CEGAT to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 60 lakhs virtually amounts to denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er income of approximately Rs. 15 lakhs. Further, the financial statements for the year ending 31-3-97 reflects a balance of Rs. 2.30 crores brought forward from the previous years. In the case of RHL Profiles, the financial statements for the same period shows a sales turnover of over Rs. 24 crores and other income of approx. Rs. 2.74 crores. In addition to this has been a profit brought forward from the last account. Prayer for waiver of pre-deposit stipulation was not accepted in the aforesaid background. 6.Requirement of deposit of the amount in dispute is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal and not for filing the appeal. Failure to deposit the amount in question would render the appeal incompetent. While considering an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice. It must be conferred by statute and can be exercised only as permitted by statute. There is no fetter in imposing conditions about deposit of fees etc. There are many fiscal statutes like Central Excise and Salt Act, Customs Act, Sales tax Acts of various States and many other similar statutes, which mandate deposit of disputed amount as a condition precedent for entertaining appeal. Condition of deposit of court fee in many cases merely regulates exercise of right of appeal. It is open to legislature to impose an accompanying liability upon a party upon whom legal right is conferred or to prescribe conditions for exercise of right. Any requirement for discharge of that liability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India [(1990) 2 LLJ 500)] it was held that provision which requires deposit of fee before resorting to appeal cannot be said to be illegal and the inconvenience caused to appellant to make payment is no reason to strike down said statutory provisions. It was observed by Punjab Haryana High Court in Piara Singh v. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Patiala (1987 LIC 818) that simple fact that compensation awarded has to be deposited before an appeal can be entertain would not furnish ground to entertain writ petition by-passing statutory remedy for appeal. In Nathamani Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu 1986 (2) LLJ 423, it was observed that if the legislature provides for no appeal in a particular case, or provides for an appeal s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for stay. It has observed that prima facie what appears from record that nature of inputs was scrap and not any of the inputs specified in the table to the notification under consideration. Further duty burden had not been discharged in respect of inputs supplied. Whether this view shall finally be retained shall be adjudicated at the time of final disposal. So CEGAT was justified in holding that a prima facie case was not made out. As regards financial hardship, CEGAT'S findings have been discussed above. No specific reason has been indicated as to on what account operations of Usha Udyog have been suspended since May, 1999 as claimed. In any event the impugned order of CEGAT was passed on 26-5-1998. It suffers from no inheren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
