Telemats India (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
2002 Latest Caselaw 995 Del

ORDER

1. The dispute is about the precise rate at which excise duty is payable on the supporting/transmission towers manufactured and supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise raised a demand of Rs. 12,15,081/- on account of differential duty @ 15%, which according to him was leviable on these goods and @ 13% which the petitioner had paid, with Rs. 25,000/- as penalty imposed on non-deposit of due duty. The petitioner says as per communication received from the respondent No. 2, the correct rate of duty was 13% which had been paid and that demand raised and penalty imposed are wrong and illegal. The petitioner filed appeal against the demand before the Commissioner (Appeals) who waived the penalty but upheld the decision of the department that the excise duty @ 15% was rightly levied on the goods. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (C.E.G.A.T.). By Order dated 5-2-2002 C.E.G.A.T. directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs within a period of 8 weeks and stayed recovery of balance amount and posted the case for reporting compliance on 23rd April, 2002. As per allegation made in the petition the petitioner did not comply with the order. The Counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of non-deposit of the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs the appeal has been dismissed by the C.E.G.A.T. The petitioner has now challenged the same Order of the department before this court. The petitioner intentionally and deliberately chose not to get his appeal decided on merit. The Tribunal had shown indulgence and had allowed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs out of the demand of Rs. 12,15,081/-. The petitioner has not challenged the Order of the C.E.G.A.T. by which its appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had alternative and efficacious remedy for getting the dispute adjudicated upon and it did file appeal before C.E.G.A.T. but abandoned it for no apparent good reason. We do not find that in the facts and circumstances of this case this court should exercise it extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction for interfering with the Order of the department. The petitioner has no merit. It is dismissed.