2009 (3) TMI 206 - HC - Central Excise

Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Held that - The Tribunal in its exercise of discretionary jurisdiction has taken into consideration all the facts, the evidence on record, the respective stands of the parties and the contentions in support thereof, as well as all parameters for determining whether demand raised should be stayed in entirety or partially. If Tribunal, in its exercise of discretionary powers, comes to the conclusion, on the basis of evidence on record, that against total demand of ₹ 70 lacs and odd, a sum of ₹ 18 lacs should be deposited by the petitioner, it is not possible to state that the exercise of such discretion is vitiated in any manner whatsoever. It is also not possible to state that the impugned order is not a reasoned order - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order calling for deposit of Rs. 18 lacs within eight weeks from the date of order; Allegation of error in law by Tribunal for not following its own previous order; Argument of new case being made out by Tribunal; Claim of directing deposit of 100% duty amount; Petitioner's plea for intervention by the Court.

Analysis:
The petition challenges an order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 18 lacs within eight weeks from the date of the order. The main contention raised is that the Tribunal erred in law by not adhering to its previous order from 30-11-2006, which had given specific directions to reconcile factual positions with statutory records. The petitioner argues that the Tribunal unconditionally granted stay against the entire demand in the first round but failed to acknowledge the adjudicating authority's non-compliance with the earlier directions. It is contended that the Tribunal deviated from judicial discipline by introducing a new case and effectively demanding a deposit equivalent to 100% of the duty amount related to three specific items.

Upon hearing the arguments and reviewing the impugned order, the Court finds no grounds to intervene. The Court notes that the Tribunal, in its discretionary jurisdiction, considered all relevant facts, evidence, parties' positions, and parameters for deciding whether to stay the demand fully or partially. The Court emphasizes that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion, based on the evidence, to require a deposit of Rs. 18 lacs out of a total demand of over Rs. 70 lacs is not inherently flawed. It is observed that the impugned order is reasoned and that the Court, at this stage, is not tasked with evaluating the case's merits. Consequently, the Court declines to intervene in the matter, as no violations of permissible parameters for intervention are demonstrated.

The impugned order, dated 18-12-2008, directed compliance by a specified date, which was subsequently extended. The petitioner is granted an extension until 4-4-2009 to comply with the Tribunal's order, with a reporting deadline of 6-4-2009. Subject to this extension for deposit, the petition is summarily rejected, indicating that compliance by the revised deadline would be deemed satisfactory.