2012 (10) TMI 458 - HC - Central Excise

Direction for pre deposit - Held that - As the petitioner seeks only reconsideration of the matter at the hands of the Tribunal the points highlighted by the petitioner requires consideration. The finding in Ext.P9, that in the earlier stages there was no direction to make a pre-deposit is also not correct. The duty now fixed has come down to Rs.14,99,801/- from Rs.51,82,048.50, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner will be free to re-agitate the matter before the Tribunal. For enabling the Tribunal to pass fresh order, Exhibit P9 is set aside.

Issues:
Challenge to proceedings by 2nd respondent, direction to pre-deposit Rs.6 lakhs, grounds of grievance in Writ Petition, order under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, initiation of proceedings against petitioner, Tribunal appeal, revised proposed duty amount, consideration of relevant aspects, direction for pre-deposit, compliance with previous orders, proper consideration of details, reconsideration by Tribunal, reduction in duty amount, setting aside of Exhibit P9, passing fresh order.

The judgment primarily deals with the challenge posed by the petitioner against the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent, focusing on the direction to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.6 lakhs within a specified timeframe. The petitioner contests that various crucial aspects have not been adequately considered in the said proceedings. The order in question is passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, stemming from the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Allegations include duty evasion and penalty imposition related to the clandestine production and removal of tread rubber, leading to subsequent orders and appeals before the Tribunal. The petitioner's grievances are outlined in the Writ Petition, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the situation.

The Writ Petition also highlights the history of the case, detailing the various steps taken, including previous judgments and orders. The petitioner points out that during the appeal process, certain pre-deposit amounts were directed by the Tribunal and subsequently modified by the High Court of Madras. Compliance with these orders is duly noted, with the petitioner receiving refunds and termination of bank guarantees as per the revised directives. The petitioner asserts that these crucial details were available during the Tribunal's consideration but were allegedly not adequately taken into account.

The judgment refrains from delving into the merits of the contentions between the parties, focusing solely on the validity of Exhibit P9. The court acknowledges the petitioner's plea that relevant aspects were overlooked in the direction to pre-deposit Rs.6 lakhs. Notably, the court points out discrepancies in the duty amount, which has significantly reduced from the initial demand. Consequently, the court sets aside Exhibit P9, allowing the petitioner to re-agitate the matter before the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The court emphasizes the necessity for a comprehensive review of the highlighted points and assures expeditious proceedings to address the concerns raised by both the petitioner and the Department.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the proceedings and the direction to pre-deposit a substantial amount. By setting aside Exhibit P9 and enabling a fresh consideration by the Tribunal, the court aims to ensure a fair and thorough review of the case, taking into account all relevant details and contentions presented by the parties involved.

← Previous Next →