2004 (10) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Seizure of processed fabrics - Show cause notice - Confirmation of dues and penalties - Appeal before CEGAT - Pre-deposit condition - Modification application for pre-deposit order - Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance - Writ petition before High Court - Dismissal of restoration application by CEGAT - Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Validity of impugned orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Central Excise Rules and Seizure of Processed Fabrics:
The case involves the petitioner, engaged in dyeing and printing works, facing allegations of excess processed fabrics found during a search by excise authorities. The authorities seized fabrics and issued a show cause notice under Rule 233-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Subsequently, the Commissioner confirmed dues and penalties, leading to an appeal before CEGAT.

2. Pre-deposit Condition and Modification Application:
CEGAT directed the petitioner to deposit a sum as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. A modification application was filed for reconsideration due to financial constraints, but subsequent orders required compliance with pre-deposit conditions. The petitioner failed to furnish the bank guarantee as ordered, resulting in dismissal of the appeal by CEGAT.

3. Dismissal of Appeal and Writ Petition:
The dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions led to a writ petition before the High Court. Despite opportunities to comply, the petitioner failed to furnish the bank guarantee within stipulated timelines, leading to dismissal of the petition by the High Court Division Bench.

4. Restoration Application and Jurisdiction under Article 227:
The petitioner later furnished a bank guarantee and sought restoration of the appeal, which was rejected by CEGAT. The court emphasized the narrow scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, highlighting that mere wrong decisions do not warrant interference unless there is a clear error of law or fact.

5. Validity of Impugned Orders:
Upon review, the High Court found no error in the impugned orders passed by CEGAT. The court declined to interfere, emphasizing that the orders were lawful exercises of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, maintaining the integrity of the legal process and upholding the decisions made by the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzed the series of events, including non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions, dismissal of appeals, and subsequent petitions before higher courts. The court upheld the decisions of CEGAT and emphasized the limited scope of intervention under Article 227, ultimately dismissing the petition for lack of valid reasons to interfere with the impugned orders.