2014 (4) TMI 147 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Quantum of pre deposit - manufacture of tractor parts - Held that - Amount requested by tribunal to make pre deposit is reduced to 1.5 Lacs from 3 lacs - However, time period to make pre deposit is extended - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against Tribunal's order.
2. Quantum of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the Tribunal. The case involved a demand of Rs. 3,44,398/- along with penalty and interest imposed on the assessee, engaged in the manufacture of tractor parts. Initially, the demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, but later, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the order. Subsequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, which was challenged by the revenue in the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. However, the authority confirmed the demand again, leading to further appeals and orders. The primary issue was the quantum of pre-deposit required for hearing the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The main contention raised by the appellants was the inability to comply with the pre-deposit requirement of Rs. 3 lacs due to financial constraints, which they deemed excessive. On the other hand, the revenue argued that the amount was reasonable and justified. After considering the submissions from both parties, the High Court directed the appellants to deposit a reduced amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court emphasized that this reduced pre-deposit amount would meet the ends of justice, thereby disposing of the appeal accordingly.

3. Furthermore, the High Court set aside the orders dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit directive. It granted the appellants time until a specified date to deposit the reduced amount. The Court allowed the appeal to be heard on merits if the appellants deposited the required sum by the given deadline. However, it cautioned that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. This decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case.