Court dismisses central excise appeal under Section 35G, highlighting importance of legal consistency

The Court dismissed the central excise appeal challenging the order under Section 35G, citing no substantial question of law. The appellant's arguments for full waiver based on breach of natural justice and undue hardship were rejected, emphasizing the importance of consistency in CESTAT decisions. The Court referenced relevant case laws to support its decision, underscoring the significance of adherence to principles of natural justice and the interpretation of "undue hardship" for grant of waivers under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---

---

Issues Involved: Challenge to order under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking modification of earlier order u/s. 35F regarding duty deposit; Breach of principles of natural justice in passing order-in-original; Interpretation of "undue hardship" for grant of waiver u/s. 35F.

Challenge to Order under Section 35G:
The appellant sought modification of an order dated 23-10-2012 passed by CESTAT directing deposit of 25% duty. Appellant argued for full waiver similar to a sister unit, citing identical challenges. The refusal to modify the order was contested based on breaches of natural justice and reliance on relevant case laws like Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India.

Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
Allegations of lack of opportunity to cross-examine officers during survey and failure to address these breaches in the order-in-original were raised. Reference was made to judgments like Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. and Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. to support the argument that such breaches warrant full waiver.

Interpretation of "Undue Hardship" for Waiver:
The respondent contended that the appellant was not in losses and mere mention of "undue hardship" is insufficient for waiver. Citing precedents like Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was argued that no substantial question of law arises when CESTAT refuses to interfere based on lack of undue hardship.

Separate Appeal on Order dated 7-6-2012:
A separate appeal questioning the order dated 7-6-2012 was mentioned by the appellant, but disputed by the respondent. Findings in the said order indicated the appellant was not in losses and had necessary opportunity, leading to the conclusion that no case of undue hardship existed.

Conclusion:
Considering the arguments and precedents cited, the Court dismissed the central excise appeal, finding no substantial question of law. The discussion highlighted the importance of natural justice, interpretation of "undue hardship," and consistency in CESTAT decisions based on similar facts.

---