1999 (9) TMI 101 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods and imposition of excise duty and penalty.
2. Appeal against the Tribunal's order partially rejecting the stay-cum-waiver application.
3. Consideration of limitation period and hardship in depositing demanded amount.
4. Legal grounds for the Tribunal's decision and applicability of relevant provisions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of Pan Masala, faced seizure of goods and imposition of excise duty and penalties by Central Excise officers for discrepancies in recorded stock. The Commissioner confirmed the notices, leading to a demand for excise duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal, which partially granted the stay-cum-waiver application, requiring a substantial deposit towards duty and penalties.

2. The writ petition challenged the Tribunal's order, primarily focusing on the rejection of the stay-cum-waiver application. The petitioner argued that the demand was barred by limitation and highlighted the goods in custody as sufficient security for revenue. The legal counsels presented their arguments, emphasizing the value of goods and the alleged suppression of facts by the petitioner.

3. The discussion revolved around the provisions of Section 11A and Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, which govern the recovery of duties and deposit pending appeal, respectively. The petitioner contended that the demand was time-barred, while the respondents asserted that the limitation period was extended due to willful suppression of facts. The Tribunal's decision to require a deposit was based on safeguarding revenue interests.

4. The judgment delved into the interpretation of statutory provisions and legal precedents cited by both parties. While the petitioner relied on previous court decisions emphasizing the consideration of limitation in such cases, the Court found that the Tribunal's order was not illegal or improper. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting the substantial demand amount and the goods in custody as factors justifying the deposit requirement.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the absence of undue hardship or illegality in the Tribunal's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the Tribunal's discretion in balancing revenue protection and petitioner's interests.