Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 1990 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1990 (6) TMI 75 - HC - Central Excise

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of CEGAT regarding duty and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the CEGAT dated 29-12-1989, which directed M/s. Radiant Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. to pay duty of Rs. 3,98,280.65 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 for clearing goods without payment of duty. The Appellate Tribunal ordered the petitioner to deposit the entire duty as pre-deposit and allowed a partial deposit of Rs. 50,000 out of the penalty amount. The Court clarified that it was not sitting in appeal but examining the decision-making process. The Court emphasized the two conditions for exercising discretion in disposing of the stay application - prima facie case on appeal and financial hardship. The Court found that the CEGAT had properly considered both aspects and modified the impugned order to allow the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for the entire penalty amount instead of depositing Rs. 50,000 in cash. The petitioner was still required to deposit the duty amount for the appeal. The Court disposed of the writ petition by modifying the impugned order accordingly.

The Court emphasized that unless the statutory authority exceeds its jurisdiction or the order results in manifest injustice, the writ court would be reluctant to interfere. The Court assessed the financial hardship of the petitioner by reviewing the balance sheet and other materials on record. The Court extended the time for payment by three months, allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount in three equal instalments or in a lump sum. The Court directed all parties to act on the signed copy of the operative portion of the order. No costs were awarded in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates