9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Alleged evasion of excise duty, appeal before Tribunal, stay of disputed amounts, review application rejection, right to cross-examination
The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner was alleged to have evaded excise duty on certain stocks of Biri. The Additional Collector required the petitioner to pay the evaded amount and a penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, seeking a stay on the disputed amounts. The Tribunal initially granted a partial stay, directing the petitioner to deposit a specific amount within two weeks. The petitioner failed to make the deposit and filed a review application, which was rejected. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's orders. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal did not consider key factors such as the limitation period, the petitioner's financial capability, and the lack of cross-examination opportunity. The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing that the Tribunal's discretion to dispense with the deposit or grant a stay should be exercised judiciously based on the circumstances of each case. The Court found the petitioner's allegations against the Tribunal to be baseless, noting that the Tribunal had prima facie considered the relevant aspects, including limitation and financial status. It clarified that the Tribunal's role at that stage was tentative, and a final decision on the appeal was not expected. The Court emphasized that interference in the Tribunal's discretionary powers was unwarranted unless there was unreasonable or capricious behavior. Regarding the right to cross-examination, the Court explained that it is not an absolute right and depends on the facts of the case. The Tribunal had duly considered the petitioner's submission on cross-examination before passing the order for deposit. The Court also addressed the timing issue of the deposit requirement, allowing the petitioner an extended period for payment in the interest of justice. Ultimately, the Court rejected the Writ Petition, subject to the petitioner making the payment within the specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of complying with the Tribunal's directives.
|
