2010 (12) TMI 1076 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - Pre-deposit of sum with interest - Alleged undue hardship faced by petitioner - Applicability of amended Rule 6 of Removal of Goods Rules - Opportunity to argue not given during hearing - Liberty granted to file application for review of order - Stay on realization of dues till review decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) directing a pre-deposit of a specific sum with interest, contending that undue hardship was not considered and an opportunity to argue on the applicability of the amended Rule 6 of the Removal of Goods Rules was not provided during the hearing. The Court noted that the stay petition did not include a plea of undue hardship, which is essential to establish a case for such relief. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision was deemed justified as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. However, in response to the submission that the petitioner was not given a chance to argue on the rule's applicability, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to file a review application within seven days. If such an application is submitted, the Commissioner must issue a reasoned order within a fortnight after a hearing. The notice for the realization of dues was stayed until the review decision, but if no application is filed within the stipulated time, authorities can proceed with the notice in accordance with the law.

The Court clarified that since the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage without requiring affidavits from the respondents, the allegations made were considered denied by them. Additionally, an urgent certified copy of the order was directed to be provided to the parties upon completion of necessary formalities. The judgment focused on the petitioner's failure to plead undue hardship in the stay application, leading to the dismissal of that claim. However, recognizing the lack of opportunity to argue on the rule's applicability, the Court granted the petitioner the chance to seek a review of the Commissioner's order within a specified timeframe, ensuring a prompt decision with a hearing opportunity. The stay on the realization of dues was contingent upon the filing and consideration of the review application, emphasizing procedural fairness and the right to present arguments effectively during legal proceedings.