9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on behalf of respondent No. 1 today in Court are taken on record. 3. CWP No. 8433 of 2012 has been filed against the stay order dated 9-2-2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") holding that the appeal of the petitioner would be dismissed automatically without any further hearing in the case on account of non-deposit of an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores by M/s. Vishwakarma Alloys Ltd. (M/s. VAL) as directed in the impugned order dated 9-2-2012. 4. The facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition as narrated therein are that respondent No. 1 levied duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As per the said Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completion of investigation, respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 3-9-2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 be not imposed upon it. It was also mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner and other dealers have only supplied invoices to M/s. VAL and have not sold the material. The reply to the said show cause notice was filed. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6-5-2010 imposed penalty of Rs.7,26,153/-, i.e. equal to the amount of credit passed to VAL. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner as well as VAL and various other dealers and transporters filed appeals before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, stay applications were also filed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to plead that the impugned order is in accordance with law. 8. After heading learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the observations of the Tribunal against the petitioner cannot be legally sustained. The Tribunal while adjudicating the stay application of the petitioner had waived the condition of pre-deposit fully. However, M/s. VAL has been directed to deposit Rs. 2.5 crores as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. In such a situation, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that failure to deposit Rs. 2.5 crores by M/s. VAL would automatically result in dismissal of appeal of the petitioner. Law fastens liability on the defaulter and it is the defaulter who can be penalized for its own act unless otherwise expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
