9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion the common order of the second respondent in Order-in-Stay Petition Nos.33 and 34/2013 (M-IV), dated 22.2.2013, seeking to quash the same in so far as it orders payment of a pre-deposit of 50% of the duty confirmed by the first respondent in Order-in-Original Nos.08 and 09/2012-13, dated 30.8.2012 and consequently to direct the second respondent to take up the appeals of the petitioner, viz., A.Nos.103 and 104 of 2012 (M-IV) on merits and dispose of them in accordance with law, without insisting on any pre-deposit. 4. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is a manufacturer of sheet metal components for motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, apart from charging interest and imposing penalty. The petitioner contends that according to the Revenue authorities, the petitioner ought not to have discharged the duty liability for the said period of May 2010 to December 2010 by debiting CENVAT credit account and the same ought to have been paid on consignment basis, i.e. paid in PLA/cash, without utilisation of CENVAT credit. This was due to the fact that the petitioner had not paid the entire outstanding duty with interest thereon at that time. Contravention of Rules 8(3) and 8(3-A) of the Central Excise Rules, was alleged. 7. It is further alleged by the petitioner that for the subsequent period of debit in the petitioner's CENVAT account, viz., January 2011 to October 2011, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order that if the petitioner fails to pay the said pre-deposit before the said due date, the appeals are liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the condition of stay granted in terms of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, without any further notice; subject to complying with the above direction, the second respondent further directed that the petitioner is given an opportunity of being heard in person on 22.3.2013 by 11 a.m. in respect of the main appeals preferred by the petitioner. Challenging the said order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the second respondent, these Writ Petitions are filed for the above relief. 9. The main focus of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents ought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second respondent in the impugned common order, the petitioner has chosen to question the lenient approach of the second respondent, by filing these Writ Petitions, which are not maintainable. 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material documents available on record including the impugned order. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Company is a registered manufacturer of sheet metal components for motor vehicles and they have availed CENVAT credit of the excise duty paid on its capital goods and also of the excise duty paid on its inputs and input services, as contemplated under the the CENVAT Credit Rules and complied with all the procedures and formalities stipulated therein. For the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving filed the appeals along with stay petitions and petitions for waiver of pre-deposit, before the second respondent, the law will take its own course in respect of considering the prima-facie case, balance of convenience, undue hardship and the financial burden of the petitioner. The petitioner-Company projected their case before the second respondent-appellate authority on the financial crisis faced by them and also shown the undue hardship and prayed for waiver of the pre-deposit in entirety. The second respondent, considering the material facts and looking into the balance of convenience and the prima-facie case of the petitioner, and also keeping in mind the interest of the Revenue, reduced the pre-deposit amount to the extent of 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it ordered by the second respondent is no way legally infirmed, which is accordingly confirmed, as there is no scope of interference in the same in the light of the settled legal principles. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a plea that the date fixed for payment of the pre-deposit amounts is 21.3.2013; since the petitioner has to mobilise the funds for paying the pre-deposit amount, some time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the pre-deposit amounts ordered by the second respondent in the impugned order and on such payment, he requested that the second respondent-appellate authority may be directed to take up the appeals themselves and dispose of the same within a reasonable time limit. Learned counsel for the respondents/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
