TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court partially grants writ, sets conditions, bond required, penalty upheld, transfer challenge rejected.</h1> <h3>MINOO BISCUITS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> MINOO BISCUITS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 534 (Cal.) Issues:Claim of concessional rate of excise duty, search and seizure at factory, notice to show cause for confiscation and demand of duty, appeal against order of adjudication, application for stay of pre-deposit, challenge to Tribunal's order, jurisdiction of Special Bench at Delhi.Analysis:The petitioner, a manufacturer of Biscuits, claimed to be a registered Small Scale Industries Unit entitled to pay excise duty at a concessional rate of 5% ad valorem. Following a search and seizure at the factory, confessional statements by the director and manager revealed clandestine clearances without payment of duty. Subsequently, a notice was issued demanding duty on various quantities of biscuits manufactured and removed without payment of duty.The Additional Collector, Central Excise, after considering evidence, imposed duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and sought a stay of pre-deposit pending appeal. The Tribunal granted a waiver subject to certain conditions, including depositing specified amounts towards duty and penalty.The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order in a writ petition, arguing for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and disputing the transfer of the case to the Special Bench at Delhi. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support their contentions regarding pre-deposit requirements and jurisdiction of the Special Bench.The court noted that the petitioner had accepted the Tribunal's order by seeking an extension to comply with it. While acknowledging the dispute over the rate of duty, the court observed that the Tribunal had not adequately considered the submissions. The court directed the petitioner to furnish a bond for a specified amount instead of depositing it, subject to the decision of the Special Bench.Regarding the penalty, the court declined to interfere, considering the gravity of the alleged offense. Ultimately, the court partially allowed the writ application, directing the petitioner to comply with specified conditions within a stipulated timeframe, failing which the application would be dismissed. The court rejected the challenge to the transfer of the case to the Special Bench and ordered no costs to be awarded.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioner's challenges to the Tribunal's order, focusing on pre-deposit requirements, jurisdictional issues, and the rate of excise duty. The court balanced the interests of the petitioner and the gravity of the alleged offense in determining the appropriate course of action.
TaxTMI 