9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Recovery of excise duty and penalty. 2. Legality and validity of the order passed by the Tribunal. 3. Challenge to the order for pre-deposit of amount. 4. Extension of ad interim relief. 5. Calculation and deposit of interest amount. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing man-made fabrics, were served a show cause notice for recovery of excise duty amounting to Rs. 32,43,576.09 ps. The Collector directed payment of the duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The petitioners challenged this order before the Tribunal, which directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- instead of the total amount. The petitioners contested the Tribunal's order, arguing it was unjust. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had considered all relevant facts and circumstances, thus rejecting the petitioners' claim under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners also sought an extension of the ad interim relief granted earlier to challenge the Tribunal's order before a superior forum. The Court acknowledged the need to balance granting time for approaching a superior forum with the consequences of fiscal statutes. The Court highlighted the importance of not allowing powerful economic interests to misuse the legal system to the detriment of society. Ultimately, the Court decided to impose conditions on the petitioners, directing them to calculate and deposit interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs for two months, with the deposited interest being non-refundable and non-adjustable against any future duty payable. 3. The Court emphasized that granting time without conditions could lead to a situation where the petitioner benefits from interest without any risk, creating an incentive for frivolous litigation. To prevent such misuse, the Court directed the petitioners to deposit the calculated interest amount by a specified date, failing which the ad interim relief would stand vacated automatically. This decision aimed to ensure that the legal process was not exploited for personal gain at the expense of the society. 4. In conclusion, the Court rejected the petition but allowed the ad interim relief to remain in operation subject to the petitioners' compliance with the directed conditions. The order highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal system and preventing its manipulation for individual profit. By imposing conditions on the petitioners, the Court aimed to strike a balance between providing access to justice and safeguarding against potential abuse of legal processes for personal gain.
|
