9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 14-2-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda raising demand of duty of Rs. 2,85,22,727/- for the period from 1991-92 to 1995-96 and also imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lacs. When the petitioner's stay application came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 20-6-1997, the Tribunal observed that on merits, the classification of the product is arguable and having regard to the financial position of the petitioner-company, as reflected in their provisional balance sheet as on 31-3-1997, indicating the sales revenue of over Rs. 2 crores, the Tribunal directed that for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits, the petitioner shall pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1 crore on or before 31-7-1997. The matter was ordered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e condition stipulated in the stay orders passed by the Tribunal and those six appeals came to be allowed by the Tribunal as per its judgment dated 25-9-2000. The Tribunal held that the appellants therein were manufacturing laboratory glassware and that they were covered by Heading 7012.10 and not under Heading 7015. The department carried the matter before the Apex Court and those appeals have, by now, been decided by the judgment dated 19-4-2006 reported as Commissioner of C.Ex., Vadodara v. Pioneer Scientific Glass Works, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 308 (S.C.). The Apex Court dismissed the appeals filed by the department and confirmed the findings of the Tribunal that the products manufactured by the respondents before the Apex Court were laborato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of non-compliance with the stay order, the department attached the petitioner's properties and the properties were at that time valued at Rs. 21,57,200/- and this fact also supports the petitioner's case that the condition imposed by the Tribunal in the pre-deposit order dated 20-6-1997 was too harsh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner also deserves a chance to get his appeal heard on merits, more particularly when the appeals of other similarly situated manufacturers were not only allowed by the Tribunal but the said order is also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in April 2006. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Harin Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondents ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be heard on merits. Moreover, after dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the stay order and after the appeals of six other parties were allowed by the Tribunal, the petitioner made one more attempt by going back to the Tribunal with a request to restore its appeal. However, the Tribunal dismissed that application on 23-1-2001 and therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in March 2001. It cannot, therefore, be said that this petition suffers from delay, laches and acquisance. Even otherwise, looking to the injustice done to the petitioner-company, this is a fit case where this Court would entertain this petition. 7. The next question is what reliefs may be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
