2012 (10) TMI 231 - HC - Central Excise

Dismissal of Appeal Against Pre-deposit Orders under Central Excise Act

M/s Kap Cones (P) Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and another

M/s Kap Cones (P) Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and another - TMI Issues:Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against pre-deposit orders by the Tribunal.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal against the orders of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 32 lacs for hearing the appeal, along with costs of Rs. 10,000. The appellant raised several substantial questions of law challenging the Tribunal's orders. The issues included whether the impugned order was perverse, whether the Tribunal was justified in ordering the deposit when a significant amount was already deposited, whether the imposition of costs was justified, and whether the Tribunal's order was fair considering the appellant's strong prima facie case. The appellant argued that grave injustice would result if the respondents executed the legal order without hearing the appeal.The appellant, a private limited company with manufacturing units in Gurgaon, availed Cenvat credit on capital goods/inputs and paid duty on finished goods. Following a search by the authorities, discrepancies were found in the stock and Cenvat credit availed, leading to a show cause notice for payment of duty. The respondent confirmed the duty amount and disallowed certain credits, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal under Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal, through orders dated 3.7.2012 and 30.8.2012, directed the appellant to deposit a substantial sum as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal, which led to the current appeal before the High Court.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's orders that would warrant intervention by the High Court. The counsel did request an extension of time to comply with the Tribunal's orders, citing no financial hardship. The High Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal and dismissed it. However, the Court granted an extension of two weeks for the appellant to deposit the required amount. If the appellant complied within the specified time, the appeal would be heard on its merits in accordance with the law.