Delhi High Court
Sharp Global Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 19 July, 2012
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19th July, 2012.
+ CEAC 19/2012 & CM Appl.10768/2012
SHARP GLOBAL LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Adv. with Mr.
Pushkar Kr. Singh, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, sr. standing counsel
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J: (OPEN COURT)
1. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the
order dated 20.4.2012 being order No.50/679-685/2012 Ex. (DB) in 2579/2012 of the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The brief facts are
that the appellant is a manufacturer of finished menthol products. It used to claim
benefit of Cenvat on the ground that purchases were made from Amarnath Industries
of Jammu. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is the beneficiary of CESTAT vide
notification No.56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 whereby the manufacturer of such
products is entitled to claim refund of the duty paid. Director General of Central
Excise Intelligence initiated investigations pursuant to which a show cause notice was
issued by the manufacturers as well as some other manufacturers including Amarnath
Industries. The show cause notice alleged that Amarnath Industries was not actually
manufacturing the intermediate product which was procured by the appellant but it
used to give support to petitioners to claim cenvat credit. After hearing the parties, the
Commissioner of Central Excise by the order in original, upheld against the notices,
CEAC 19/2012 Page 1 of 2
including that against the present petitioner, and rendered findings that Amarnath
Industries was not engaging itself in manufacturing but used to supply only crude oil,
used ultimately for the manufacture of petitioner's products.
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order to the extent that it
directs 15% of the duty demanded, which aggregates to `1,00,00,000/- is
unreasonable. It was submitted that having regard to the circumstances, the materials
on record and the findings of the CESTAT, the inference drawn by the authority that
the appellant is involved in the alleged duty evasion was unreasonable in law. It was
urged that the petitioner was in fact bona fide purchasers of the material which might
or might not have been manufactured by Amarnath Industries.
3. We have considered THE materials on record. The question of interfering with
an interlocutory order of the CESTAT on the question of pre-deposit would arise in
such cases when the condition imposed is claimed to have caused excessive or
substantial hardship or incapacity. In the present case, the petitioner has in no way
claimed that the direction to pay 15% of the duty demanded which works out to
Rs.one crore is unreasonable that results in substantial hardship so as to cause
prejudice its right to be heard. As far as the findings are concerned, we are satisfied
that they cannot be considered as meritless. In the circumstances, we find no ground
to interfere.
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
R.V.EASWAR, J.
JULY 19, 2012
vld
