TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks and to report compliance to the adjudicating authority. 4. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, viz., processed man made fabrics, out of raw material obtained locally or imported duty free of central excise/customs duty under the obligation of export of final product as well as clearance of final product in domestic tariff area on payment of appropriate duty as applicable as per the norms of the Exim Policy until 2005. 5. A show cause notice dated 31st January, 2006, came to be issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit to the petitioner firm and its partner Shri Firozahmed Gulam Mohammed Waghbakriwala and Shri Mobin Bilal Memon, Director of M/s Hz. Khidhr Exports Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the petitioners indulged in bogus export of goods to Malaysia through third party exporter, etc. It is the case of the petitioners that the show cause notice was served upon them on 09.03.2006 with incomplete relied upon documents by DGCEI. The petitioners, therefore, by a letter dated 19.04.2006, sought copies of relied upon documents from DGCEI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court was drawn to certain documents obtained by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, to point out that the show cause notice came to be issued on 31st January, 2006 and by an application dated 19.04.2006 addressed to the Joint Director, DGCEI, the petitioners had made an application seeking copies of the documents mentioned in Serial No.5 to 12 of Annexure "C" to the show cause notice. It was pointed out that on 31.07.2006, since the decision on demand of duty involving any raw material used in manufacture of finished goods cleared was still pending before the Tribunal, the cases wherein similar issues were involved, including the present case, came to be transferred to the call book. It was pointed out that thus, the matter was kept in the call book till 12.01.2012, when pursuant to the remarks passed by the Commissioner that all pending cases to be taken out from the call book and adjudicated, the matters came to be retrieved from the call book for furtherance of the adjudicating proceeding. It was submitted that thus, the matter had been kept in the call book for a period from 31.07.2006 to 12.01.2012. Subsequently, the notices for personal hearing came to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have challenged the said order and hence, they having acquiesced with such order, it is not open for them to challenge the present order which is similar to the previous order passed by the Tribunal. Reference was also made to the provisions of section 35C of the Central Excise Act, to submit that the same duly authorises the Tribunal to impose conditions while remanding the case to the adjudicating authority and that the Tribunal having done so, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this court. In support of such contention the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this court in the case of Avaya Global Connect Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 (37) STR 193 (Guj.) for the proposition that there is no bar under section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that while referring the case back to the original authority, the Tribunal cannot impose any condition and/or issue any direction of deposit of some amount before any fresh adjudication on remand. 8. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has perused the record and proceedings of the case as pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has firstly allowed the stay application and thereby, waived pre-deposit of the duties, interest and penalty and has also afforded personal hearing to the petitioners. However, thereafter, while passing the final order has directed the petitioners to pre-deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- as a condition precedent for re-adjudication by the adjudicating authority. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal did not deem it fit to direct the petitioners to make any pre-deposit under 35F of the Central Excise Act for entertaining the appeal, it is apparent that the Tribunal must have found merit in the appeal. Under the circumstances, entertaining the appeal without insisting on any pre-deposit and then directing payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- while remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, is a contradiction in itself. Once the Tribunal found it fit to waive pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, one fails to comprehend as to why a direction for pre-deposit was required to be issued while remanding the matter for fresh adjudication....