9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip pleaded by the petitioner, and hence, the amount of pre-deposit 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. The petitioner is directed to pay the pre-deposit amounts as ordered by the second respondent-appellate authority in the impugned common order, dated 22.2.2013, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to take up the appeals. - W.P.Nos.6752 and 6753 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2013 - V. Dhanapalan,J. For the petitioner : Mr.C.Seethapathy For the respondents : Mr.K.Ravindranath, SCGSC ORDER By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard Mr.C.Seethapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ravindranath, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, who took notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner calls in question 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, a similar show cause notice bearing No.52 of 2011, dated 3.1.2012 was issued by the first respondent. In view of the fact that the petitioner's officials were dealing with the financial crisis of the Company and were also trying to meet the requirements of the buyers and as the person looking after these matters, namely Mr.D.Vaidyanathan, was suffering from acute jaundice, the petitioner sought for adjournment of the personal hearing, but the first respondent proceeded on both the show cause notices for adjudication together and passed common order in Order-in-Original Nos.08 and 09 of 2012-13, dated 30.8.2012, demanding duty for ₹ 42,84,883/- and ₹ 48,46,517/-, along with interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tingencies like the financial burden, undue hardship, etc., and after considering the prima-facie case and the balance of convenience of the party, there could be waiver of the pre-deposit. In the present case, the second respondent weighed the entire situation and ordered pre-deposit of 50% of the duty confirmed by the first respondent-original authority. He further stated that the second respondent was lenient and sympathetic in ordering pre-deposit of 50% of the duty confirmed, for the periods in question, and also waived the interest and penalty imposed, which normally cannot be questioned before this Court; without paying the amount as ordered by the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest of the Revenue, reduced the pre-deposit amount to the extent of 50% of the duty confirmed and also waived the interest and penalty; in case of non-compliance of the condition, it was made clear by the second respondent-appellate authority that the appeals are liable to be dismissed without any further notice. 15. Law is well settled that if a party pleads undue hardship or financial constraint, the appellate authority/Tribunal will take note of the prima-facie case and the balance of convenience of the party and also keep in mind the interest of the Revenue and the capacity of the party to pay the amount and will pass appropriate orders while ordering pre-deposit before entertaining the appeal. Such cardinal principles are in the discretion of the appellate authority/Tribunal, in deciding as to what is the undue hardship, financial burden, etc., of a party before ordering pre-deposit/waiver of pre-deposit. 16. In the instant case, the second respondent-appellate authority has viewed the matter sympathetically and shown lenient approach while reducing the pre-deposit amount to the extent of 50%, apart from waiving the interest and penalty. If such a course is adopted by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
