9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of orders directing pre-deposit of tax and penalty. 2. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders. 3. Consideration of extension of time for deposit. 4. Review of Tribunal's orders under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed two writ petitions seeking to quash the orders of the second respondent Tribunal. The first petition aimed to annul the order directing a pre-deposit of rupees ten lakhs towards tax and Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty. The second petition sought to challenge the subsequent order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the directed amounts by the specified deadline of 31-12-1992. The Tribunal had based its decision on the financial aspects of the case and the balance-sheet submitted by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal was unjustified in dismissing the appeal on 31-12-1992 itself as they had requested an extension of time until 31-1-1993 to make the pre-deposit. The counsel also contended that vital considerations were overlooked in determining the quantum of the pre-deposit amount. Reference was made to a Division Bench judgment dated 15-11-1993, which the Tribunal could not have considered as its order was issued on 2-11-1992. However, the court declined to review the Tribunal's order dated 2-11-1992, as the petitioner had previously sought extensions to comply with the directive. 3. The court acknowledged that orders under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, are interim in nature and based on prima facie aspects of the case. Despite the petitioner's acceptance of the Tribunal's order and requests for extensions, the court was disinclined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. However, considering the circumstances, the court decided to grant the petitioner an extension until 30-4-1994 to make the required deposit. If the amounts were deposited by the specified date, the Tribunal was directed to proceed with the appeal on its merits. Failure to comply by 30-4-1994 would result in the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. 4. The court ultimately set aside the order of 31-12-1992 and provided the petitioner with an extended deadline for compliance. The decision highlighted the importance of showing leniency in this particular case and emphasized the consequences of non-compliance with the directives. The judgment concluded by outlining the terms of the order and specified that no costs were to be incurred in relation to the writ petitions.
|
