9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the order of Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 03.04.2012 by which the application for extension of time for deposit of precondition for hearing the appeals have been rejected and consequently the appeals have been dismissed and order dated 16.02.2010 by which the appellants were directed to deposit 60% of the liability as a precondition for hearing the appeals. One appeal has been filed by the Company and another appeal has been filed by its director arising out of same proceeding as such both the appeals are consolidated and heard together. The appellants have proposed several substantia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e new industries established after 07.01.2003 and the existing industries who have made substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% after 07.01.2003. The appellant, claiming that it has made substantial expansion and has increased it's installed capacity by more than 25% after 07.01.2003 was eligible for exemption from payment of excise duty under the Government Order dated 10.06.2003, applied for grant of exemption from payment of excise duty on 12.11.2003 and has completed all the other formalities on 20.12.2003 before Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Rampur. Superintendent (Preventive)/ Central Excise Commissioner-II, Meerut through his letter dated 01.11.2004 again called some more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Reconstruction, treating it as a sick company. The Tribunal by the order dated 22.02.2012 rejected the modification application. The appellant then filed an application for extension of time to deposit the 60% of the liability, which was also rejected on 09.04.2012 and consequently the appeals were dismissed. 5. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant fulfilled all the conditions for grant of exemption from payment of central excise under the Government order dated 10.06.2003 and has filed the application for grant of exemption on 12.11.2003. The respondents authorities have illegally took unreasonable time in passing final order on the application of the appellant. It has illegally rejected the application by order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 1 SCC 259 allowed full exemption from the liability to deposit precondition amount in appeal by the company, which was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction treating it as a sick company. 7. For the aforesaid discussion, the appeals succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned orders dated 03.04.2012 and 16.02.2010 are set aside subject to the condition that the appellant deposits Rs. 4 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
