9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge against order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lacs, Application for waiver of pre-deposit amount under Section 35F, Tribunal's dismissal of petitioners' contention regarding seized records, Interference with Tribunal's orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction, Remand of the matter to Tribunal for proper consideration of contentions in the application under Section 35F. Analysis: The writ petition challenged an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 20 lacs as pre-deposit for hearing the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The petitioners contended that the seized records would show that no material was removed from their factory for home consumption, and all material sent for processing was returned. They argued for waiver of the pre-deposit amount, citing a prima facie case and alleged erroneous imposition of duty and penalty by the Commissioner. The Tribunal summarily dismissed the petitioners' contention regarding the seized records, stating it was up to the petitioners to explain the situation, which they had failed to do before the Commissioner. The High Court, however, found fault with the Tribunal's approach, noting that the seized documents were crucial evidence and should have been considered. The Court emphasized the Tribunal's role as the final fact-finding authority and its power to reverse findings of fact. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's orders and remanded the matter for a proper consideration of the contentions raised under Section 35F. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and directing a rehearing of the petitioners' application under Section 35F. The Court instructed the Tribunal to give the petitioners an opportunity to present their case with reference to the seized records and make a decision based on the merits of the application. The ruling made the rule absolute with no order as to costs, with parties instructed to act on the authenticated copy of the order, and expedited the issuance of a certified copy.
|
