2013 (10) TMI 237 - HC - Central Excise

Discriminatory Approach Held that - We fail to understand as to why different approach has been adopted in the case of another dealer raising similar question and not resorting to order of remand, as was the order passed in the case of Rohit Industries - the decision of the Tribunal set aside and instead accept the request of the petitioner to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit so as to enable the petitioner to contest the appeal on merits, as, in all probabilities, the petitioner s appeal will also be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), as was done in the case of other dealers stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discriminatory approach by the Tribunal in requiring pre-deposit for hearing appeals.
2. Alleged inconsistency in the Tribunal's decisions for different dealers facing similar issues.
3. Request to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement for the petitioner's appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh pertains to a petition challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the Tribunal's decision requiring a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, citing discriminatory treatment compared to other dealers in similar situations. The petitioner highlighted that other dealers had been granted waivers for pre-deposit in their cases, emphasizing a lack of consistency in the Tribunal's approach.

The Court noted that the issues raised by the petitioner overlapped with those raised by other entities and questioned the differing treatment by the Tribunal. Specifically referencing the cases of Rohit Industries and M/s Kathuria Electronics, the Court expressed confusion over the varying approaches taken by the Tribunal in similar matters. The Court referenced previous judgments and emphasized the need for a fair and consistent application of rules and procedures in such cases.

In response to the petitioner's grievances, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and granted the petitioner's request to waive the pre-deposit requirement. The Court justified this decision by anticipating that the petitioner's appeal would likely be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further review, aligning with the treatment given to other dealers facing similar issues. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition and any related applications in accordance with the decision to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement for the petitioner's appeal.