TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.M/s. GTC Industries Limited, petitioner No. 2, is a manufacturer of cigarettes. It has its own manufacturing facilities and also gets the cigarettes manufactured by other manufacturers, including M/s. Kanpur Cigarettes (P) Limited, petitioner No.1. The Excise authorities claimed to have discovered that they were avoiding excise duty and, therefore, the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, passed an order levying a sum of Rs. 1,01,20,221/- on the petitioners as excise duty and additional excise duty. This amount was levied on the two petitioners jointly. In addition, both were ordered to pay penalties of Rs. 60,000/- each. Orders were passed levying various amounts of excise duty and penalties by the Collectors of Central Excise, Bombay,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the end of the lengthy arguments that the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition. The High Court allowed the withdrawal subjecting the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs. The other writ petitions were also dismissed as withdrawn on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioners and the others against whom the orders were passed again moved seven applications in their respective appeals for the so-called modifications of the earlier order dated 19th August, 1993. It was contended on behalf of the excise authorities that an application for modification was not maintainable. The Tribunal, however, treated all these applications as fresh applications, but finding no ground to make a different order rejected all of them. It is in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 S.C. 88) in which it was held that the petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh writ petition, cannot file a fresh writ petition in respect of the same cause of action in the High Court under that Article. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the writ petition that was argued before the Tribunal did not relate to the present dues and the petition filed by them was not even argued and, therefore, they could file a fresh petition and the bar would not apply to their case. It was also argued that, in any case, the petitioners having filed a fresh petition for waiver before the Tribunal which has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioners as fresh applications. A perusal of the Tribunal's order dated 19th August, 1993, shows that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the companies are making very small profits and in case pre-deposit of the entire amount is insisted upon, undue financial hardship will be caused to the companies. This is, however, a general observation and does not specifically mention any individual company though there were six appellants before it in eight appeals. 12.As regards M/s. Kanpur Cigarettes (P) Limited, petitioner No. 1, its case before the Tribunal was that it was suffering losses and its balance sheet showed an accumulated loss of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. In the present writ petition also, it has been contended that the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t deserved concession under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act and, in my view, the petitioner's appeal should be heard on merits if the petitioner deposits Rs. 5,00,000/- with the Adjudicating Authority, the condition of pre-deposit of the balance shall stand dispensed with. 14.As regards M/s. GTC Industries Limited, Petitioner No. 2, the counter affidavit and the documents filed therewith show that it is a very big company having gross assets of more than hundred crores. The amount required to be deposited by the Tribunal was only Rs. 1,01,20,221/- out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- will be deposited by the petitioner No. 1. Therefore, the balance to be deposited by it is not a very large amount looking to its size and the accounts as anne....