1992 (9) TMI 112 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of excise duty and penalty payable by the petitioner.
2. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
3. Application for dispensing with the requirement of depositing the demanded duty.
4. Review petition filed by the petitioner challenging the partial dispensation of predeposit condition.
5. Tribunal's decision to extend the time for compliance with the deposit condition.
6. Challenge to the Tribunal's order and request for quashing the order.
7. Allegation of the impugned order being vitiated due to non-consideration of limitation against the demand.
8. Examination of the plea of limitation and the justification for not interfering with the impugned order.
9. Consideration of whether the demand by the Revenue was prima facie barred by time.
10. Refraining from examining the submission on findings being perverse and allowing the petitioner to agitate the plea of limitation before the Tribunal.
11. Evaluation of the argument that the impugned order is unjust.
12. Assessment of the interlocutory nature of the impugned order and the court's reluctance to interfere with such orders.

Analysis:
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad addressed the issue of excise duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 5,94,731/- determined to be payable by the petitioner under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner appealed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, seeking dispensation from depositing the demanded duty. The Tribunal, considering the financial position and undue hardship, dispensed with the predeposit condition on the condition of depositing Rupees two lacs within a specified timeframe. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the partial dispensation, filed a review petition requesting total dispensation or an extension of time. The Tribunal extended the compliance deadline, which was further challenged by the petitioner before the High Court, seeking quashing of the order and direction to hear the appeal without insisting on compliance with the deposit condition.

The petitioner alleged that the impugned order was vitiated due to the non-consideration of limitation against the demand. The court rejected this argument, stating that the plea of limitation was not specifically pleaded in the review petition and was not pressed during arguments before the Tribunal. The court analyzed the demand under Section 11A of the Act and found that the demand was not prima facie barred by time due to the intentional evasion of duty by the petitioner. The court allowed the petitioner to raise the plea of limitation before the Tribunal for adjudication.

Regarding the argument of the impugned order being unjust, the court found no demonstration of injustice and deemed the order to be just, providing complete justice to the parties. The court also highlighted the interlocutory nature of the impugned order, expressing reluctance to interfere with such orders. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that it must fail based on the reasons presented in the judgment.