Super Tyres Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 41 Del

ORDER

1. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 accepts notice.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length.

3. Challenge in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 25-10-2004. The application was filed by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit of the Central Excise duties amounting to Rs. 2,76,48,219/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lacs. Various grounds were taken by the assessed before the Appellate Tribunal. A direction was passed for deposit of Rs. 20 lacs as pre-deposit to the hearing of the appeal. It was treated to be sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The matter was remanded. The Assessing Officer again re-adjudicated the matter and again confirmed the duty of Rs. 2,76,48,219/- against which the appeal was filed. In the appeal the Appellate Tribunal has directed the Petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 20 lacs within eight weeks from the date of the order as the pre-deposit for hearing of the appeals. This amount was directed against total demand raised by the department including penalty. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that if upon remand the matter was referred to the lower authorities by the Appellate Authority and the same demand has been reiterated and assessed against the petitioner it will be no ground for the Appellate Authority to direct deposit of a further amount as the basic demand and consequences therefore remain to be the same. It is also contested that deposit of the said amount at this stage would seriously prejudice the rights of the Petitioner. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the order dated 25-10-2004 in so far as it directs deposit of a further sum of Rs. 20 lacs is not sustainable. It would have been appropriate for the authorities concerned to hear the appellant without this pre-deposit condition as the Petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lacs which itself was considered by the Appellate Tribunal to be an adequate amount for compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act.

4. For the reasons afore-stated, we modify the order dated 25-10-2004 and direct the Tribunal to hear the appeal without enforcing the condition of a further deposit of Rs. 20 lacs.

5. We expect the Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal as early as possible.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.