2014 (3) TMI 837 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Extension of time period for pre deposit - Held that - A prayer was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to extend the time for pre-deposit. However, in the interest of justice, we extend the time to deposit the amount - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Tribunal.
2. Substantial questions of law raised by the appellant.
3. Adjudication of the appeal based on the facts presented.
4. Dispute over the deposit amount required for hearing the appeal.
5. Decision on the amount to be deposited as a condition precedent.
6. Extension of time for pre-deposit granted by the court.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Tribunal, raising substantial questions of law. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order directing a deposit of Rs. 50 lacs for hearing the appeal was unjustified, given the strong prima facie case. The revenue, however, argued in favor of the Tribunal's decision, stating that the directed amount was reasonable and justified.

2. The facts of the case revealed that the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of various products, received show cause notices for duty recovery. After a series of adjudications and appeals, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 50 lacs as a condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant challenged this directive, leading to the current appeal.

3. Upon considering the arguments from both parties and the overall circumstances, the court decided to reduce the deposit amount from Rs. 50 lacs to Rs. 15 lacs as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal. The court disposed of the appeal accordingly, granting an extension until a specified date for the appellant to make the required deposit.

4. The court's decision to lower the deposit amount was based on the totality of facts and circumstances presented during the proceedings. By reducing the deposit requirement, the court aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring a fair adjudication process.

5. In the interest of justice, the court granted an extension for the appellant to fulfill the deposit requirement by a specified date. This extension allowed the appellant additional time to comply with the court's directive, ensuring that the appeal would be heard on its merits as per the Tribunal's order.

Overall, the judgment addressed the issues raised by the appellant regarding the deposit amount, providing a balanced decision that considered the legal principles and circumstances of the case.