Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2006 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (12) TMI 155 - HC - Central Excise

Issues involved:
1. Discrepancy in orders issued by the Tribunal regarding pre-deposit amounts for hearing appeals.
2. Arbitrariness in the Tribunal's decisions.
3. Consistency in handling appeals with similar subject matters.
4. Direction on pre-deposit requirements for hearing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, delivered by Rajesh Balia and Gopal Krishan Vyas, JJ., addresses the discrepancy in orders issued by the Tribunal concerning pre-deposit amounts for hearing appeals. The court notes that the petitioner was initially required to deposit a consolidated amount of Rs. 25 lakhs within 8 weeks for 8 appeals, while the pre-deposit was suspended entirely for another appeal by a different order just two days later. This inconsistency in decisions by the same Tribunal highlights the arbitrariness in the orders under challenge.

Furthermore, the court observes that all 12 appeals before the Tribunal have identical subject matters. The judgment emphasizes that directing the petitioner to deposit the amount for 8 appeals, especially when other similar appeals were allowed on merit without pre-deposit, would serve no useful purpose. The court emphasizes the need for consistency in handling appeals with the same issues and facts to avoid subjecting the petitioner to varying conditions for entering the appeals.

In light of the above analysis, the High Court sets aside the impugned order that directed the petitioner to pre-deposit Rs. 25 lakhs for the 8 appeals. The court directs the Tribunal to hear all 8 appeals on merit without insisting on any pre-deposit amount, similar to how the other 4 appeals were handled. It is decided that the appeals in question will be decided after considering the orders passed in the remaining appeals on a specific date. The judgment concludes by stating that there shall be no orders as to costs, indicating that no additional financial burden is imposed on any party in this matter.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates