2003 (9) TMI 97 - HC - Central Excise

Stay order - Seeking Modification of its earlier order - Financial hardship - waiver of duty - HELD THAT - No material facts or particulars as to who supplied information is to be found. No independent enquiry was made by the said Chartered Accountant before issuing such certificate. It is really unfortunate, that such highly respected professionals like Chartered Accountants should start issuing such casual certificates just to please or oblige their clients. We have examined each and every aspect of the finding recorded by the Tribunal to examine the perversity of the findings sought to be demonstrated before us. Having examined the same, we are of the opinion that no perversity exists in the order. We agree with the findings of the Tribunal in toto. If one turns to the P L Account for the period ended 31st March, 2002, the sale of the Petitioner company are in the sum of Rs. 28,88,52,381/- for nine months. The net current assets are in the sum of Rs. 69,49,41,680/-. The net worth of the company is also positive. The sales of the Petitioner company for the year ended on 30th June, 2001 were in the sum of Rs. 513,47,28,469/- Schedule II forming part of the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2002 shows loans and advances to the Directors, Sister Companies or Group Companies, intercorporate deposits, intercorporate advances and other deposits are in the sum of Rs. 108,37,32,077/- as against 115,38,12,021/- as on 30th March, 2001 meaning thereby Rs. 17,00,79,944/- are realised in the current year in one or the other form. This is sufficient to show good financial health of the petitioner Company. The above discussion will show that the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be a perverse, much less erroneous. The view taken by the tribunal is not only possible but the correct view based on facts; which can very well be supported on the basis of the material available on record. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. We endorse and confirm the order of the CEGAT and dismiss this petition in limini for the reasons recorded herein as well as for the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. In the result, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge against the refusal of the CEGAT to accept modification of its earlier order directing deposit of a specific amount towards duty with penalty. The main issue revolves around the grounds for seeking modification and the legality of the impugned order.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the order of the CEGAT dated 20th September, 2002, which refused to grant modification of the earlier order dated 22nd April, 2002, requiring a deposit towards duty and penalty. The Court noted that the original order dated 22nd April, 2002 had become final and conclusive between the parties, and the challenge was specifically against the subsequent order of refusal to modify. The legality of the impugned order was questioned based on the grounds presented for seeking modification.

Upon examination, it was found that the application for modification lacked a clear cause or change in circumstances justifying the request. The Court emphasized that the alleged financial hardship cited as a ground for modification was not a new circumstance post the original order. The judgment highlighted that the Tribunal should have refused to entertain such applications lacking prima facie evidence for modification.

The Court reiterated that the CEGAT does not possess the power to review its own orders, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case to be made for seeking modification. It was observed that many applications seeking modification were akin to grounds for review, leading to unnecessary consumption of time and resources. The judgment directed the Tribunal to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine if a prima facie case for modification exists before delving into detailed consideration.

Regarding the merits of the contentions presented, the Court examined financial documents and certificates provided by the Petitioner, ultimately upholding the findings of the Tribunal. The financial health of the Petitioner company was analyzed to support the conclusion that the Tribunal's order was not erroneous or perverse. The judgment dismissed the petition, endorsing the decision of the CEGAT and directing the circulation of the order for information and action.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of establishing a prima facie case for modification and upholding the Tribunal's decision based on the available facts and financial evidence presented.

End of Summary