9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposal of the appeal. This order was passed on an application by the petitioner under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (for short "the Act") pending appeal filed against the order dated 28 October, 1993 of the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. 2.The petitioner, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufacture of electronic typewriters which item during relevant period (1982-85) was classifiable under Item 33D of the First Schedule to the Act. The Collector by his order confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,16,85,378/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the petitioner. CEGAT had pointed out that the matter related to the period 1982-85 and had passed through different stages of adjudication, remands, re-adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appropriate assessment and payment of Central Excise Duty. The charge of suppression of production and its removal is(6) established against the appellants. 3.CEGAT examined various grounds urged by the petitioner in support of the application seeking stay of deposit of the duty and penalty pending appeal. The petitioner had said that the Collector who adjudicated the matter was not competent to do so as when he passed the impugned order he was no more Collector Judicial; the assessments were provisional and there was no legal basis for raising demand and that the demand could not be made before finalisation of the provisional assessments; sales of the petitioner were in retail and petitioner had in fact paid higher central excise du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount demanded and the full penalty amount levied, then it may cause undue hardship. In the interest of justice and taking all the relevant considerations into account we direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. One Crore (Rupees one crore only) within 8 weeks of the receipt of this order, and on depositing the said amount of Rs. One Crore the balance duty amount and the penalty amounts will be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. If the appellants fail to deposit the above sum within the time as stipulated above then this stay order shall be automatically vacated and the appeal shall also be liable for dismissal without any further reference to them." 4.The impugned order dated 4 July, 1994 of the CEGAT was stated to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CEGAT exercised its discretion in a judicial manner by requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. One Crore as a pre-condition for its appeal to be heard. Mr. Ravinder Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised same question as were urged by him before the CEGAT. Arguments proceeded on the basis as if we were hearing appeal against the order of the CEGAT. He said the CEGAT wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case. That cannot be scope of the writ jurisdiction. We have not been shown any jurisdictional error when has crept in the impugned order for us to interfere. Mr. Ravinder Narain submitted that the CEGAT fell into error when it misread the earlier order of the CEGAT, or applied a judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
