9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore seventy five lakh) towards duty with in eight weeks from the date of the order with direction to report compliance. Subject to compliance of the said order within stipulated period, pre deposit of balance amount of duty, interest and penalty was to stand dispensed with and stay was to operate pending disposal of the appeal. Failure to comply with the aforesaid direction, stay was to stand, automatically, vacated and the appeal was to stand dismissed without further notice of the petitioner. The facts: 3. The factual matrix reveals that on 22nd April, 2005 M/s. RCF published global tender notification in Times of India and Indian Express both dated 22nd April, 2005 and other local newspapers. M/s. RCF issued tender form to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 1st December, 2006 was issued to M/s. RCF demanding duty along with interest and penalty of Rs. 7.151 crore of that much quantity of Naphtha not used for manufacture of fertilizers. Similar notice was also issued to the petitioner on 7th December, 2006 proposing to demand duty of Rs. 7.51' crore with same allegations. In nutshell, two separate show-cause notices demanding very same duty were issued to recipient i.e. M/s. RCF and sender i.e. petitioner. 8. The petitioner resisted show cause notice vide its reply dated 10th October, 2007. The Commissioner, Mumbai-II, on 11th December, 2007, con firmed the demand upon the petitioner and on 12th December, 2007, through separate order, show cause notice issued to M/s. RCF was dropped. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the petitioners to submit evidence of utilization by M/s. RCF for the manufacture of fertilizers. In his submission, duty liability can only be upon M/s. RCF i.e. recipient of Naphtha for manufacture of fertilizers. He also raised certain more contentions in support of his submission and pressed into service a legal principle that law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly do. He relied upon various documents and also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Indian Seamless Steel and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 945 (Bom.). He also pressed into service the provision of Chapter 14 of the CBEC, Excise Manual (part 6) containing supplementary instructions with latest clarifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the same was brought to its notice. However, we do not find any reference to the said aspect of the matter in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. Solvency is beyond doubt. The question sought to be raised in appeal, no doubt, needs serious consideration by the Tribunal, however, one cannot say that no prima facie; case was made out by the petitioner for complete waive of the pre-deposit. As a matter of fact, as per the instructions of the Board, petitioner is exempted from furnishing any security. 14. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioner to execute a general bond with the jurisdictional Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
