2003 (8) TMI 59 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file affidavit-in-opposition in a writ petition.
2. Alleged evasion of excise duty by a petitioner-company.
3. Tribunal's order directing deposit of a certain amount for hearing an appeal.
4. Review application seeking reduction of the deposit amount.
5. Tribunal's rejection of the review application.
6. Challenge to the Tribunal's order in a writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with noting the failure to file an affidavit-in-opposition despite directions in a writ petition.

2. The petitioner-company, engaged in manufacturing tin containers, faced allegations of evading excise duty following a raid by Excise authorities. Documents were seized, and a show cause notice was issued, indicating discrepancies in Modvat accounts. The petitioner did not respond to the notice, leading to an order demanding payment of around Rs. 25 lakhs.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the Tribunal, which required a deposit before hearing the appeal. The Tribunal directed a deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs, which the petitioner failed to make, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

4. The petitioner then filed a review application, citing inability to pay the assessed tax or the deposit. The Tribunal extended the deposit deadline without reducing the amount. The High Court intervened, setting aside the dismissal and directing the Tribunal to reconsider the review application.

5. Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal maintained the Rs. 10 lakhs deposit requirement, prompting the petitioner to challenge this decision in a writ petition. The Court found no valid reason provided in the review application to reduce the deposit, emphasizing the presence of current assets in the petitioner's balance sheet.

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the deposit amount and finding no grounds for interference. No costs were awarded, and interim orders were vacated.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural history, legal arguments, and the Court's reasoning in addressing the issues raised by the petitioner-company in the excise duty evasion case.