2015 (9) TMI 1325 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of exemption claim - area based exemption scheme vide notification dated 10.6.2003 - Denial on the ground it had failed to commence commercial production till 31.3.2010 - Held that - Court on 21.2.2015 while issuing notice of motion had directed the appellant to deposit ₹ 10 lacs within one month from that date. We are informed that the amount has since been deposited by the appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, a further sum of ₹ 10 lacs on account of duty be deposited as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal to meet the ends of justice. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quantum of pre-deposit under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's order.
3. Allegation of injustice to the appellant.
4. Extension of time for pre-deposit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quantum of pre-deposit under Section 35G
The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 45 lacs for hearing the appeal. The appellant contended that the amount was unfair and excessive. The High Court, after considering the arguments, directed the appellant to initially deposit Rs. 10 lacs, which was complied with. Subsequently, the Court ordered an additional deposit of Rs. 10 lacs as a condition precedent for the appeal hearing, emphasizing the need to meet the ends of justice.

Issue 2: Justification of the Tribunal's order
The primary contention revolved around the fairness and reasonableness of the pre-deposit amount set by the Tribunal. While the appellant claimed the liability was unjustly imposed, the revenue's counsel supported the Tribunal's decision, deeming the directed amount as justified. The High Court, after evaluating the submissions and circumstances, found it appropriate to order a total deposit of Rs. 20 lacs to proceed with the appeal, ensuring justice is served.

Issue 3: Allegation of injustice to the appellant
The appellant argued that the liability imposed on them was illegal. Despite the initial disagreement on the pre-deposit amount, the Court's decision to reduce the total deposit to Rs. 20 lacs can be seen as a balanced approach, considering both parties' arguments and the need to uphold fairness in the proceedings.

Issue 4: Extension of time for pre-deposit
In response to the appellant's request for an extension of time to make the additional deposit of Rs. 10 lacs, the Court granted an extension until a specified date, allowing the appellant to comply with the order. The Court's decision to extend the deadline demonstrated a willingness to accommodate reasonable requests within the framework of justice.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the concerns raised by the appellant regarding the pre-deposit amount, ensuring a fair and just resolution by modifying the deposit requirement while upholding the principles of law and justice.