2000 (8) TMI 99 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash certain orders passed by the respondent. The main issue is whether there are valid grounds to allow the writ petition challenging the orders.

Analysis:

1. Background and Allegations: The petitioner, a small-scale manufacturer, was involved in manufacturing parts of bottling machines and conveyors. They did not take out a license under the belief it was not required. The Central Excise Department inspected their premises and issued a show cause notice for non-payment of excise duty. The Collector of Central Excise imposed duty and penalty. The petitioner appealed and sought a stay which required a pre-deposit.

2. Dismissal of Appeal: The petitioner failed to comply with the pre-deposit condition despite extensions. The respondent dismissed the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The petitioner filed a petition for restoration of the stay application and to dispense with the pre-deposit, which was also dismissed by the respondent.

3. Contentions and Court's Observations: The petitioner contended that the respondent did not consider their request to dispense with the pre-deposit and passed the order without proper consideration. However, the court noted that the respondent had given the petitioner an opportunity to comply with the pre-deposit condition before rushing to court. The court observed that the petitioner's intention seemed to prolong the issue.

4. Decision: The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions. Despite opportunities given by the authorities, the petitioner failed to make the required payments. The court cited a previous decision to emphasize the importance of genuine difficulties, which the petitioner did not demonstrate. The court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it along with associated motions.

5. Final Verdict: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not establish a case in their favor. The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on a previous decision, highlighting the petitioner's failure to make necessary payments despite multiple opportunities. The court found no grounds for interference with the impugned orders and dismissed the petition without costs.