9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal directing deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs as a condition for entertaining appeal. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to an order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, where the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs within eight weeks for their appeal to be entertained. The petitioner was accused of manufacturing excisable goods without the required license and not paying Central Excise Duty. The adjudicating authority determined a total central excise duty liability of over Rs. 2.8 crores along with a penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal seeking a stay on the demand, which was granted subject to depositing Rs. 50 lakhs. The legal issue revolved around the requirement of deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, which mandates depositing the duty demanded or penalty levied as a condition for appealing. However, the proviso to this section allows the appellate authority to waive the deposit if it would cause undue hardship to the appellant. The court emphasized that the interest of the Revenue is crucial, and the provision is mandatory unless the appellate authority exercises discretion under the proviso. The focus is on whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case and if the deposit would cause undue hardship. The court clarified that at the stage of considering the deposit requirement, detailed inquiry into the merits of the case is not necessary. The key factors are whether the appellant has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and if the deposit would cause undue hardship. In this case, the Tribunal's order was found to overlook the circumstantial nature of the evidence against the petitioner. Considering the financial status of the petitioner and the circumstantial evidence, the court modified the deposit amount to Rs. 20 lakhs instead of Rs. 50 lakhs, allowing the appeal to be heard if the amount was deposited by a specified date. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition by modifying the deposit amount required for the appeal, considering the circumstantial evidence against the petitioner and their financial status. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of the Revenue with the appellant's right to appeal, as provided under the relevant legal provisions.
|
