2010 (1) TMI 590 - HC - Indian Laws

Modification of the order - waiver of the deposit of the duty and penalty imposed upon the petitioner - Tribunal being an appellate authority has exercised its discretionary power and rejected the application to modify its earlier order for waiver of the pre-deposit amount to maintain the Appeal of this petitioner Held that -pre-deposit waiver is not required in the instant case and directed the petitioner to deposit - petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for waiver of pre-deposit and mandamus for hearing appeal on merits.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by CESTAT dismissing the application for modification filed for waiver with a further pre-deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 and mandamus directing CESTAT to hear the appeal on merits. The petitioner filed an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before CESTAT, seeking to stay the operation of the impugned order passed by the respondent. The CESTAT rejected the application, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 within a specified period. The petitioner then filed an application seeking modification of the order, contending that the total liability towards excise duty was lower than determined. However, the Tribunal rejected this application, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

The respondent's counsel justified the order, arguing it was discretionary and aimed at preventing undue hardship. The Tribunal had exercised its discretionary power by directing the petitioner to deposit a specific sum, considering the duty amount and penalties imposed. The counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the Tribunal's order, asserting that there was no basis for the Court to interfere with the discretionary order passed by CESTAT.

After hearing both parties, the Court examined the petitioner's application for waiver of the deposit and the application for modification of the stay order. The Court noted that the Tribunal had rejected the modification application, stating that the pre-deposit waiver was not necessary in this case. Considering the facts and the nature of the impugned order, the Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as it had recorded a prima facie case that the pre-deposit waiver was not warranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding that there was no valid reason to interfere with CESTAT's order through judicial review in the writ petition.