2014 (11) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issuing show cause notice confiscated the seized goods under the provisions of Section 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which was seized by the department on 12-3-2010 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority gave an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/-; and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the petitioners No. 1 & 2 under the provisions of Rules 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner No. 1 has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority by order dated 18-10-2012 upheld co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation. 5. The learned appellate tribunal by order dated 18-3-2013 rejected the application by holding that no case for grant of stay is made out. 6. Order dated 18-3-2013 (Annexure P/6) read as under :- "The Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, the latter being the subject matter of substantive appeals, do not prima facie appear to be vitiated either by procedural or substantive error susceptible to appellate reversal. In the circumstances, no case is made out for grant of stay. Hence, the applications are dismissed." 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the various judgments of the appellate tribunal they have a strong prima facie case and, therefore, insistence of pre-deposit o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the cases of Indoworth India Ltd v. CESTAT, Mumbai, 2010 (253) E.L.T. 364 (Bom.) , Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Meerut-II v. Rang Sugar Ltd., 2010 (253) E.L.T. 366 (All.), Anil Kumar Didwania v. Collector of Customs, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 374 (Cal.), Guru Ispat Ltd. v. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 378 (Cal.), Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2010 (253) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), Union of India v. East & West Shipping Agency, 2010 (253) E.L.T. 12 (Bom.), Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, 2012 (8) SCC 524, Auram Jewellery Export (P) Ltd.. v. Union of India, 2010 (251) E.L.T. 365 (All.) and S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... E.L.T. 452 (All.), Calcutta High Court in the case of Hoogly Mills Company Ltd. v. Union of India, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 637 (Cal.), another decision of. M.P. High Court in the case of Omega Alloy Castings Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appl.), C. Ex., Indore, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 86 (M.P.) and Kishori Pujari Granite Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 (184) E.L.T. 225 (M.P.), wherein, the various High Courts have held that mechanical dismissal of the appeal by order of simpliciter on that ground is improper and so is a telegraphic order rejecting stay application not considering the two aspects in detail No. (1) - Whether the petitioner therein has been able to make out a prima facie case? (2) Whether the petitioner is going to suffer undue hardship or ....