High Court overturns Tribunal interim order, directs fresh decision on Central Excise Act application

The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad overturned the Tribunal's interim order and directed a fresh decision on the application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's order for a pre-deposit of Rs. 30 lacs was upheld, with serious allegations against the counsel for unauthorized actions related to the deposit. The Tribunal found the earlier order valid and rejected the rectification application, emphasizing that the deposit statement was made based on client instructions. The Tribunal also referred the matter to the Bar Council of Delhi for necessary action regarding the serious allegations among the involved advocates.

---

---

Issues: Application for rectification of order regarding deposit of Rs. 30 lacs without proper authorization. Allegations against counsel for unauthorized undertaking.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought rectification of the order dated 26-2-2007, claiming that the counsel who agreed to deposit Rs. 30 lacs was not authorized to do so. The learned counsel, Shri Pradeep Jain, allegedly gave the undertaking without proper authorization, leading to the present application for rectification. The application was signed by Shri Shashank Kumar and argued by Shri Vikas Nanda, advocates for the appellant.

2. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad overturned the Tribunal's interim order and directed a fresh decision on the application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Subsequently, the Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 30 lacs in addition to the already deposited Rs. 20 lacs. The counsel for the applicant mentioned that the additional deposit could be made if waiver of the remaining duty and penalty was granted. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 30 lacs within six weeks, along with other pre-deposit directions against the appellant.

3. Serious allegations were made against the counsel, Shri Pradeep Jain, for unauthorized actions related to the deposit. A notice was issued to him to address these allegations. In response, Shri Pradeep Jain claimed that he had acted under proper instructions from his client to agree to the deposit. He filed an affidavit supporting his statement, emphasizing that the application was moved without his consent. The Tribunal noted that the statement to deposit Rs. 30 lacs was made based on instructions from the client, contradicting the applicant's claim of no such instructions being given.

4. The Tribunal found that the earlier order was validly made in accordance with the law and did not require rectification. The application for rectification was rejected, with a mention of potential actions against the applicant for providing false information. The Tribunal emphasized that the statement regarding the deposit was made on the client's instructions, and there was no valid reason to recall the earlier order.

5. The Tribunal forwarded a copy of the order to the President of the Bar Council of Delhi, along with the Vakalatnamas of the involved advocates, for necessary action based on the serious allegations made by one counsel against the others. This step was taken to address the issues raised during the proceedings and ensure appropriate action by the Bar Council of Delhi.

---