9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise. 2. Challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding pre-deposit. 3. Request for extension of ad interim relief by the petitioner. 4. Consideration of interest payment on delayed deposit. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing man-made fabrics, faced a show-cause notice for excise duty recovery amounting to Rs. 32,43,576.09 due to irregularities found during a surprise check. The Collector directed payment of the duty along with a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal challenging the order, which imposed a pre-deposit condition of Rs. 20,00,000 instead of the total amount. The challenge was solely against the Tribunal's order, not the Collector's order. 2. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's order was unjust, arguing that a lower pre-deposit amount should have sufficed. However, the court found that the Tribunal had considered all relevant facts, including the petitioner's balance-sheet, and had reasonably dispensed with a significant portion of the required deposit. The court held that interference under Article 227 was unwarranted, rejecting the petition and vacating the earlier granted ad interim relief. 3. The petitioner requested an extension of the ad interim relief to challenge the order before a superior forum. The court recognized the need to balance such requests, especially in fiscal matters impacting tax collection. Despite the petitioner's payment of Rs. 4,00,000, the court emphasized the need to prevent undue financial gains from delayed payments, considering the societal impact of tax evasion and the court's role in protecting public interests. 4. In light of the petitioner's request for time to make the remaining payment, the court imposed a condition for calculating and depositing interest at 15% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs. 16 lakhs for two months. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the calculated interest with the Tribunal by a specified date, maintaining the vacated ad interim relief until December 18, 1989, subject to compliance. Failure to pay the interest would automatically vacate the extended relief, emphasizing the non-refundable nature of the interest payment and its separation from the duty amount. Overall, the judgment addressed the challenges to the Tribunal's order, the petitioner's request for relief extension, and the imposition of interest payment conditions to prevent undue financial benefits from delayed payments, emphasizing the societal impact of tax evasion and the court's role in safeguarding public interests.
|
