9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (10) TMI 74 - HC - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
The issue involves a Public limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Zinc and Allied products seeking a direction to dispense with payment of duty as a condition precedent in filing appeals by challenging an order withdrawing an exemption from duty under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Judgment Details: 1. The petitioner, a Public limited Company, was exempted from duty under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for removal of inputs for further use in the manufacture of final products. However, this exemption was later withdrawn, and duty was imposed on certain products. The petitioner appealed this decision before the Appellate Authority and subsequently before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which directed the petitioner to pre-deposit specific amounts as per the proviso to Sec. 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the duty demanded would cause undue hardship and requested the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the order. Citing previous decisions, it was contended that there is a prima facie arguable case due to conflicting decisions by different Tribunals on the question of liability to pay duty. The Court referred to the importance of considering a prima facie case on merits and the economic circumstances of the assessee before demanding pre-deposit. 3. The Court noted that conflicting decisions by different Tribunals on the same question indicate an arguable case. Despite a previous decision stating that the Tribunal's order under the proviso to Sec. 35F cannot be interfered with unless perverse, the Court emphasized that a prima facie case justifies not requiring a substantial pre-deposit amount before hearing the appeal. 4. Based on the above findings, the Court directed the third respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request to dispense with the pre-deposit, provided the petitioner submits a petition for the same by a specified date. 5. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
