TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.07.2013 for non-compliance with direction of pre-deposit. 2. The Applicants approached the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court against the said waiver Order dt. 29.04.2013 by filing a Writ Petition No.19214 (W) of 2013. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, vide Order dated 08.08.2013, with a direction for re-consideration of the three Applications afresh, after restoration of the Appeals dismissed for non-compliance. Consequently, their Applications are taken up for fresh consideration. 3. Briefly stated, after completion of investigation of alleged evasion of duty to the tune of Rs. 34,14,010/- and Rs. 2,23,63,091/-, a show cause cum demand notice was issued to the Applicants on 15.03.2010 for recovery of the said amounts and proposition for imposition of penalty. The said demand has been confirmed against M/s. NICCO Corporation Ltd., with penalty of equal amount and personal penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on Shri Nirmal Kumar Chatterjee and Rs. 25 Lakhs on Shri Udyan Roy vide Order-in-Original No.17/COMMR/CE/KOL-II//2010-11 dated 14.03.2011. 4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Applicants filed Appeals under Section 35B and also applications for waiver under Section 35F of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inputs. Though the Applicant is required to reverse the entire amount of credit on the face of the finding of the adjudicating authority, however, taking into consideration all aspects, including financial hardship expressed by the applicant, the interest of revenue and the principle of law settled by the by the Supreme Court and High Courts in disposal of stay applications, this Tribunal, directed the Applicant to deposit 25% CENVAT Credit of Rs. 34,14,010/- i.e Rs. 8,53,502/- and waived remaining dues of Rs. 59,74,518/- confirmed on this count. Also, the pre-deposit of personal penalty against the other two applicants have been waived. 7. In nutshell, this Tribunal against the Applications for waiver of total dues of Rs. 5,90,54,202/- by the Applicants, directed pre-deposit of Rs. 8,53,502/-, which is around 1.44% of the total dues. 8. We find from the Order of the Hon'ble High Court that the High Court proceeded on the premise that the Applicants were asked to deposit 25% of the total dues and waiver has been allowed for remaining 75% of the dues. It seems that the facts were not properly placed before the Hon'ble High Court. As stated above, in fact, the Applicants have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union of India, 2009 (238) ELT 738(Guj.) has upheld the direction of pre-deposit of Rs. 4 Crores, which is around 20% of the duty amount when the company has been registered under the BIFR. 12. We find that the Ld. Advocate for the Applicants has not argued on the merits of the case, but vehemently pleaded that since the Applicant Company is registered as Sick Unit under BIFR and its net worth is negative; in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt. Ltd.s case, no pre-deposit could be directed. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt. Ltd.'s case. It reads as: Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Tribunal for non-deposit of Rs. 1.40 Crores. The assessee complains that it had already made an application pointing out to the Tribunal that the Company is under BIFR. According to the assessee, its application dated NIL September, 2005, being Modification Application No. /2005, is pending even today before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we direct the Tribunal to decide the Modification Application No /2005....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AIR 1990 SC 1782 at pp 1793 observed as: 18. The doctrine of precedent, that is being bound by a previous decision. is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. It does not mean that this Court is bound by the various reasons given in support of it, especially when they contain 'propositions wider than the case itself required." This was what Lord Selborne said in Caledonian Railway Co. v. Walker's Trustees - 1882 (7) A.C. 259 and Lord Halsbury in Quinn. Leathem (1901) A.C. 495 (502). Sir Frederick Pollock has also said : 'Judicial authority belongs not to the exact words used in this or that judgment, not even to all the reasons given, but any to the principles accepted and applied as necessary ground of the decision.' 19. In other words, the enunciation of the reason or principle upon which a question before a Court has been decided is alone a precedent. The ratio decidendi is the underlying principle, namely, the general reasons or the general grounds upon which the decision is based on the test or abstract from the specific peculiari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Sick Industries Act'), the appellant need not deposit the amount, as ordered by the Tribunal, as protection is available to the appellant under the said provision. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for reasons more than one. First, this aspect was not the subject matter of the order under challenge and, secondly, Section 22 of the Sick Industries Act, provides relief in regard to the proceedings which relate to (a) winding up of the industrial company; (b) execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company, (c) the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof, and (d) proceeding in regard to suit for recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company. Payment of pre-deposit covered under Section 35F of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 does not fall under any of the above-mentioned categories in Section 22 of the Sick Industries Act. 16. We find that the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court i.e. Metal Box India Ltd's case and Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt. L....