2021 (5) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Diary No. DEFECT/427612016 to 427632016, without any pre-deposit. 2. By the impugned order, the Registry of the First Respondent Tribunal has called upon the petitioner to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax liability in terms of amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Mr. A.L. Somaiyagi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on merits, the issue before the first respondent Tribunal is squarely covered by the order of the first respondent Tribunal in petitioner's own appeal vide Interim Order No.37/2014 dated 11.02.2014 in Appeal No. E/388/12 reported in 2015 (315) ELT 143 (Tri-Chennai) and Miscellaneous Order No. 42078/2014 dated 17.11.2014. 4. It is submitted that the seco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UOI, passed by the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in W.P.No.44708 of 2017. 7. Per Contra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that this Writ Petition was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot ask for waiver of pre-deposit contrary to the express language of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. I have also considered the decisions cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 9. Irrespective of the fact whether the issues is covered on merits or not and covered by an order of the Tribunal for the previous period, the petitioner is requir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....diction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is intended to effectuate the law and not abrogate it. 14. At the same time, I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that already an amount of Rs. 2.32 Crores was debited by the petitioner in its Personal Ledger Account during investigation. 15. The total amount of duty as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal Nos.183, 184 & 185/2016 (CXA-I) impugned before the first respondent Tribunal is about Rs. 10,95,70,702/- as detailed below:- Sl.No. Appeal No./Date Order-in-Original No./Date Period Amount involved (1) (2) (3)....