2011 (7) TMI 904 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition - Stay of demand - Principles of natural justice - commissioner (appeals) waived the condition for entertaining the appeals and restricted the pre-deposit amount of penalty to 10% and 50% respectively - It is now well settled that when the order impugned is subject-matter of an appeal before the statutory authority, this Court cannot go into the validity of the order so passed - Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that by relying upon the statement recorded in a case filed against the dealer of the petitioner-company namely M/s. Victor Hi-Tech at Madurai, proceedings were initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai dated 31.3.2009 against the said dealer and also the writ petitioner-company - writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit amount of penalty for entertaining appeals.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing impugned orders.
3. Appellate authority's discretion to waive deposit amount.
4. Consideration of grounds of appeal for waiving pre-deposit amount.

Issue 1: Waiver of pre-deposit amount of penalty for entertaining appeals:
The two writ petitions challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, and Services Tax, where the pre-deposit amount of penalty was waived for entertaining the appeals, restricting it to 10% and 50% respectively. The petitioners argued financial constraints as the reason for seeking waiver.

Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing impugned orders:
The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were passed without providing them with an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They sought a remand to the first respondent for explaining their case.

Issue 3: Appellate authority's discretion to waive deposit amount:
The standing counsel for the Central Government argued that the appellate authority, while waiving the pre-deposit amount, cannot delve into the merits of the appeal. Citing precedents, it was emphasized that no hearing is necessary once the decision on waiving the pre-deposit amount is made.

Issue 4: Consideration of grounds of appeal for waiving pre-deposit amount:
The petitioners relied on a remand order by the Appellate tribunal at Madurai Bench in a similar case, asserting that the order by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, imposing the penalty should be set aside. They argued that insisting on the pre-deposit amount would cause undue hardship.

The judgment highlighted that the appellate authority has the discretion to waive the deposit amount based on relevant considerations, including undue hardship to the appellants. The Court cited precedents emphasizing the need for the appellate authority to exercise its discretion reasonably and rationally, considering all facts and circumstances. It was noted that the impugned order was subject to appeal before the statutory authority, and the Court cannot delve into its validity. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the impugned order passed by the first respondent.