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>High Court overturns Tribunal's order for excise duty pre-deposit, citing failure to consider crucial facts.</h1> <h3>STEFAB INDIA LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> STEFAB INDIA LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 248 (Del.) Issues: Validity of the order made by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal on waiver of pre-deposit of excise duty pending appeal.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a petition challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as a pre-deposit of excise duty pending the decision of the appeal. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming a demand of about Rs. 31 lakhs. The Tribunal, in its impugned order dated 30th September, 1996, had directed the petitioner to make the said deposit, failing which the appeal would be liable to be rejected.The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the issue at hand was not the classification of the washing machines but rather the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in directing the pre-deposit. The petitioner had submitted a letter from the office of Chief Commissioner endorsing the classification of washing machines under a specific tariff entry, which was not considered by the Tribunal. The High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to consider vital and relevant facts, such as the initial order in favor of the petitioner being set aside in a review appeal, the communication from the Chief Commissioner, and the alleged benefit given to other manufacturers under the same classification.The High Court held that the non-consideration of these crucial facts by the Tribunal had vitiated its order. Therefore, the impugned order directing the pre-deposit was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal without requiring any deposit to be made as a condition for the hearing. The writ petition was allowed accordingly, with each party bearing its own costs.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the Tribunal's failure to consider significant facts relevant to the pre-deposit order, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and directing the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal without insisting on any deposit.
TaxTMI 