9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations against the appellant are quite serious. However, they should be given an opportunity to meet the findings and their contentions noticed before a prima facie view is formed. We are not stating that the appellant should not have been asked to deposit 50% of the tax amount but before any direction or finding is recorded, the pleas raised by the appellants have to be examined and considered. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Central Excise Act Case No. 102 to 104/2014 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2014 - Sanjiv Khanna And V. Kameswar Rao,JJ. For the Petitioner Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Gopalia, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Kaushik Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the order-in-original are serious and relate to removal of chewing/spit tobacco without payment of excise duty. It refers to the search and seizure operations conducted by the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, the evidence/material collected and the inferences drawn. The two individual appellants, namely, Rajinder Kumar Mittal and Parveen Kumar have been directed to pay penalty of ₹ 5 lacs each. 5. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal, in the first paragraph records the factum that the appeal has been preferred against the findings of the Commissioner. Further, the impugned order confirms duty of ₹ 1.44 crores and that penalty of ₹ 5 lacs each stands imposed on the two directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the order-in-original was passed in haste and hurry, besides the demand created is exorbitant and excessive. It is submitted that minimal or meagre penalties, viz. ranging between ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/- were imposed on the dealers, whereas in the present case the excise duty demanded is ₹ 1.44 crores. The Tribunal followed their order in the case of dealers without noticing the difference in the quantum of demand. Financial position and/or hardship of the appellant company has not been taken into consideration. As far as individual directors are concerned, they have not been asked to deposit any amount but they would suffer consequences in the form of dismissal of appeal in case payment is not made by M/s Parve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no legs to stand on, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a licence to the forum/authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. Where denial of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
