9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed by the order-in-original. While imposing the condition of predeposit, the Tribunal is required to examine prima facie merit of the appeal as well as the condition of the appellant. In the impugned order the Tribunal found that the appellant company was running under the financial loss and his request for rescheduling the payment of loan has been accepted by the banks. Even then the appellant was directed to deposit 60% of the liability which was a substantial amount for the appellant. In the financial circumstances of the company, it was an impossibility for it. In the meantime the company was also referred to Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction treating it as a sick company. The Supreme Court in Sangfroid Remedies L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of same proceeding as such both the appeals are consolidated and heard together. The appellants have proposed several substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the appeal but as the Tribunal has not decided the appeals on merits as such at this stage following substantial question of law is being framed for decision of the appeals:- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to deposit 60% of the liability without considering the fact that under the Government scheme, the appellant was entitled for exemption from excise duty and also for the reason that the appellant company has been referred to BIFR under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985?" 3. The facts giving rise to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rampur. Superintendent (Preventive)/ Central Excise Commissioner-II, Meerut through his letter dated 01.11.2004 again called some more papers/information from the appellant. Then the appellant again supplied the required papers on 30.11.2004. Central Excise Commissioner-II, Meerut then made some inquiries and recorded statements of the officials of the company on 12.12.2004. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for a long time. Ultimately by letter dated 30.12.2008 a show cause notice has been issued for payment of central excise duty, penalty and interest, stating therein that the company was not eligible for the exemption under the Government Order dated 10.06.2003. The appellant submitted it's reply on 20.08.2009 to the aforesaid sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly took unreasonable time in passing final order on the application of the appellant. It has illegally rejected the application by order-in-original dated 18.12.2009. The Tribunal without prima facie examining the merit of the appeal, directed to deposit 60% as a precondition for hearing of the appeal. In the meantime a fire took place in the company due to which the financial position of the company has become very poor and it was ultimately referred to Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction treating it as a sick company. The appellant moved an application for exempting the appellant from deposit of precondition amount but the Tribunal has rejected it without application of mind holding that it has no power to review it's order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
