2000 (11) TMI 379 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Compliance with deposit order, violation of natural justice, financial position of the appellant

Compliance with deposit order:
The appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 15 lac out of the total duty amount and an equivalent penalty within six weeks. The appellant's representative argued that the case against them was based on Jabeda Khata, which was not provided to them, alleging a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the evidence favored the Revenue, and the appellants failed to make a good prima facie case in their favor. The balance sheets presented did not reflect a poor financial position, and the Tribunal deemed the deposit order just and reasonable. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for modification but granted an additional month for compliance.

Violation of natural justice:
The appellant argued a violation of the principle of natural justice due to not receiving Jabeda Khata, a key piece of evidence in the case against them. However, the Tribunal found the evidence presented by the Revenue to be weighty, and the appellant failed to establish a strong case in their favor. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of Jabeda Khata did not significantly impact the overall decision, as the evidence against the appellants was corroborated by other statements.

Financial position of the appellant:
The appellant's representative initially stated there was no financial difficulty in depositing the required amount. However, in a subsequent application, the appellants claimed financial hardship based on their balance sheets. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the balance sheets, such as missing certification by a Chartered Accountant and incomplete financial information for subsequent years. Despite the balance sheets not reflecting a strong financial position, the Tribunal found no grounds to alter the deposit order, considering the seriousness of the charges and the clandestine nature of the alleged activities. The Tribunal granted an extension for compliance but warned of dismissal if the appellants failed to deposit the amount by the specified date.