9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal | Failure to deposit disputed amount for appeal | Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 | Comparison with decisions on appeals of similarly situated units Analysis: The petitioner, a partnership concern in the steel manufacturing sector, sought to quash an order by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dismissing its appeal against a Central Excise Commissioner's order. The petitioner contested the demand for excise duty without depositing the disputed amount, leading to dismissal of its appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the case for re-determination of the petitioner's production capacity, but subsequent failure to deposit the disputed amount resulted in dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner's challenge was based on the favorable outcomes of appeals by similarly situated units before the Tribunal. The respondents justified the dismissal, citing the petitioner's failure to adhere to the deposit requirement. After hearing both parties, the High Court found no legal flaw in the impugned order. Despite the dismissal being warranted, the Court decided to grant the petitioner another chance due to the success of appeals by comparable units. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the determined amount within two months for the appeal to be reinstated and heard on merits. In the final disposition, the Court ordered the petitioner to deposit the specified amount within the stipulated time frame. Compliance would render the impugned order ineffective, allowing the appeal to be reinstated and decided on its merits. Failure to deposit would result in the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court also directed the urgent issuance of a copy of the order upon payment of the prescribed fee.
|
