2007 (10) TMI 421 - HC - Central Excise

Petitions Challenging Commissioner's Order Disposed, Appeal Before Tribunal Allowed

MEDIWIN PHARMACEUTICALS Versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court disposed of the petitions challenging a common order by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), Central Excise, Ahmedabad, directing the petitioners to ... Levy of excise duty - limitation - constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- petitioners had moved this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), petitioners filed appeals against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) within one month from today, the Tribunal shall hear and decide the appeals on merits without raising the bar of limitation, appeal disposed off Issues:Challenge to common order dated 28-5-2007/20-6-2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-III), Central Excise, Ahmedabad under Article 226 of the Constitution.Analysis:The judgment dealt with petitions challenging a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The Assistant Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioners should have filed appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal instead of approaching the High Court directly. The petitioners argued that they were challenging the levy of excise duty, including the constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which could not be addressed by the Appellate Tribunal. They requested their petitions to be heard along with other petitions challenging the same constitutional validity.The Court acknowledged that similar petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Act were already admitted. To avoid multiple proceedings, the Court decided that the outcome of those admitted petitions would apply to all similar cases, including the present petitioners. Therefore, the Court disposed of the petitions, allowing the petitioners to challenge the Commissioner's order before the Appellate Tribunal, guided by the decision in the admitted petitions regarding the constitutional validity of Section 4A.The petitioners raised concerns about the limitation period for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, as it had expired by the time they filed their petitions. Considering the timely approach of the petitioners to the High Court and citing relevant legal principles, the Court directed the Tribunal to hear and decide the appeals on merits without considering the limitation bar, provided the petitioners filed their appeals within one month from the judgment date.Furthermore, the petitioners committed to filing appeals within the specified timeline and agreed to pay any outstanding excise duty with interest within one month. The Court, upon these commitments, directed that as long as the petitioners deposited the due amounts within the stipulated time, the respondents should refrain from coercive recovery actions. The judgment clarified that the Tribunal could address stay applications and penalties separately, without the Court expressing any opinion on the penalty levied by the authorities.In conclusion, the petitions were disposed of based on the directions provided, ensuring the petitioners' rights and contentions were preserved while requiring timely actions and compliance with the specified conditions.