9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding pre-deposit of duty and penalty, Dispute over payment of duties on jute fabrics after lamination, Invocation of longer period of limitation for show cause notice, Appeal against order confirming duty demand and penalty, Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit, Failure to comply with CEGAT's order, Financial hardship claim by petitioner, Exercise of discretion by CEGAT, Relevance of circular issued by the Board, Invocation of penal provisions, Appeal dismissal and subsequent order setting it aside. Analysis: The petitioner challenged orders by CEGAT directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lacs out of a demand for duty of Rs. 86,54,835.69 and penalty of Rs. 9 lacs. The dispute centered on whether duties were payable on duty paid jute fabrics after lamination, with the Central Excise Authorities claiming payment while the petitioner relied on a 1965 Notification and Circular to argue against it. The show cause notice invoked a longer period of limitation, leading to confirmation of duty demand and penalty for a specific period by the Commissioner, prompting an appeal to CEGAT. The petitioner sought a waiver of the pre-deposit condition, which was initially rejected by CEGAT. Despite non-compliance with CEGAT's order, a modification application was filed and rejected, extending the deposit deadline. Financial hardship was claimed, but insufficient evidence was presented to establish undue hardship. The petitioner contended that CEGAT failed to exercise discretion properly, citing relevant case laws and circulars to support their arguments. The High Court, considering the financial hardship claim and the arguable nature of the case, directed CEGAT to entertain and decide the appeal without the pre-deposit requirement. The Court emphasized the duty of public authorities to exercise discretionary powers and set aside any previous dismissal of the appeal, ordering a fresh hearing in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment favored the petitioner, highlighting the importance of considering financial hardship and ensuring proper exercise of discretion by the authorities. The decision emphasized the need for a fair hearing and adherence to legal principles in resolving the dispute over duty payment and penalty imposition.
|
