9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed. In respect of petitioner-RHL Profiles duty of Rs. 92,34,305/- and a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed. Such impositions were levied on the basis of adjudication orders. Central Excise officials visited the factory premises of petitioner Usha Udyog and on verification of record and conducting enquiries, it was observed that the said petitioner was purchasing rolling materials from local Kabaris and was clearing the goods without payment of duty while availing the benefit of exemption notification. Statement of several suppliers were recorded. Show cause notices were issued alleging that the benefit of exemption notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-88 was not applicable to the petitioner, since exemption was admissible only to the final products described in column 3 of the table to the notification. Such mis-declaration constituted contravention of Rules 174, 52A, 17G and 9 of the Rules. Notices were issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty from 1-8-90 to 28-2-94 be not demanded and penalty should not be imposed. It was indicated that extended period available under Section 11A of the Act was applicable. On a consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rations, the amounts directed to be deposited cannot be said to be unreasonable. CEGAT found that it could be prima facie said that the petitioners have not furnished vital information and were not eligible for benefit of the notification. So far as the financial conditions are concerned it was observed that the same was not as bleak as was pleaded. Financial statements of Usha Udyog for the period ending 31-3-97 reflect sales turnover of over Rs. 6.78 crores and other income of approximately Rs. 15 lakhs. Further, the financial statements for the year ending 31-3-97 reflects a balance of Rs. 2.30 crores brought forward from the previous years. In the case of RHL Profiles, the financial statements for the same period shows a sales turnover of over Rs. 24 crores and other income of approx. Rs. 2.74 crores. In addition to this has been a profit brought forward from the last account. Prayer for waiver of pre-deposit stipulation was not accepted in the aforesaid background. 6.Requirement of deposit of the amount in dispute is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal and not for filing the appeal. Failure to deposit the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f right. Any requirement for discharge of that liability or fulfilment of that condition, in case the party concerned seeks to avail the said right, is a valid piece of legislation and Article 14 has no application. Observations in the case of Hannah Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial - 1949 (337) US 541 lend some support to the view we have taken. Headnote 10 which is based upon the observations in the body of the judgment reads as follows : A state statute which requires that in a"10. stock-holder's derivative action a Plaintiff who owns less than 5 per cent of the Defendant corporation's outstanding share or shares having market value not exceeding $ 50,000 give security for the reasonable expenses including counsel fee, incurred by the corporation and by other parties Defendant and which makes the Plaintiff liable for such expenses if he does not make good his claims, and subjects the amount of security to increase if the progress of the litigation reveals that it is inadequate or to decrease if it is proved to be excessive, does not violate the contract clause or the due process clause or the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution." 8.It has to be noted that under p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... humour. It is not be arbitrary vague and fanciful but legal and regular. In the case at hand CEGAT made all elaborate analysis of factual stands of Petitioner to the extent desirable while dealing with an application for stay. It has observed that prima facie what appears from record that nature of inputs was scrap and not any of the inputs specified in the table to the notification under consideration. Further duty burden had not been discharged in respect of inputs supplied. Whether this view shall finally be retained shall be adjudicated at the time of final disposal. So CEGAT was justified in holding that a prima facie case was not made out. As regards financial hardship, CEGAT'S findings have been discussed above. No specific reason has been indicated as to on what account operations of Usha Udyog have been suspended since May, 1999 as claimed. In any event the impugned order of CEGAT was passed on 26-5-1998. It suffers from no inherent fallibility to warrant interference. 10.Section 35F of the Act deals with deposit pending appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied. Proviso deals with power of appellate authority to dispense with such deposit if it is of the opinion that de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
