2015 (1) TMI 676 - HC - Central Excise

Evasion of excise duty - Suppression of production - Held that - challenge before the Tribunal is to the actual amount of duty said to be evaded and the appellant has been asked to deposit 25% of the duty amount. Appellant is not required to make any pre-deposit on account of penalty etc. Looking at the factual findings recorded by the tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum, i.e., 25% of the duty amount. - However, time period to make the deposit is extended - In case the payment is made, the appeal will be restored and taken up for hearing - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's finding on evasion of excise duty
2. Appellant's challenge on the duty amount
3. Extension of time for payment of duty

Analysis:
1. The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order on the substantive portion concerning the evasion of excise duty. The Tribunal's interim order, based on evidence like duplicate invoices, indicated evasion of excise duty by not declaring correct production for the period 1989-92.

2. The appellant contested the duty amount before the Tribunal, arguing against the necessity of a pre-deposit for penalty. The High Court, after reviewing the factual findings, upheld the Tribunal's decision for the appellant to deposit 25% of the duty amount without requiring any pre-deposit for penalties.

3. Considering the appellant's request for an extension to arrange funds and the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal during the High Court proceedings, the Court granted a four-month extension for the appellant to make the payment in four equal monthly installments. If the payment is made as per the extended timeline, the appeal will be reinstated for hearing in accordance with the Tribunal's previous order. The appeal was consequently disposed of.