TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of acid oil which is cleared from the factory. Soap stock is not a marketable commodity as such and, therefore, not excisable. Prior to 23-7-1996 soap stock was exempted from payment of duty vide notification dated 1-3-1994. The said notification was rescinded w.e.f. 23-7-1994 and Central Excise authorities were of the view that soap stock was classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 1507.00 and petitioner was liable to pay Central Excise duty at the rate of 25 per cent. The petitioner filed the declaration under Rule 173C and declared the value of soap stock at the rate of Rs. 400 per tonne. The Central Excise authorities, however, served 3 show cause notices upon the petitioner for different periods on the ground that value of the soap st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to deposit 50 per cent of the disputed amount of duty within 15 days of its order dated 16-6-1999. Application for reconciliation was moved and this application was rejected. It was specifically stated in para 14 that from financial result for the period ending 31-3-1999 (vide Annexure 9 to the writ petition) it is evident that the income/receipts of the petitioner is about Rs. 433.73 crores and his current assets as per the balance-sheet is about Rs. 41 crores which includes bank balance of Rs. 5.7 crores. 3.In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner almost the same facts have been reiterated besides stating that the petitioner's company has been declared as a sick industrial company by the B.I.F.R. by order dated 30th Septem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the balance-sheet for the financial year 1999 and the petitioner company has sufficient liquid fund which has been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is further argued that regulation 22 of B.I.F.R. regulations provides that no proceedings for winding up of industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any properties of industrial company, etc., shall be proceeded with except with consent of the Board. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no recovery of the money is being made nor any distress or execution against the properties of the petitioner company is being proceeded with. Therefore, the provisions of Regulation 22 are not applicable. 5.The petitioner has filed supplemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said that the company has no means to deposit the same or that in case it is directed to deposit the said amount the company will be ruined. 6.Shri Kesharwani has referred to the case of Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others, 1985 (1) Supreme Court Cases 260 and has vehementaly argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which have great potential for public mischief. He submits that only in very exceptional cases the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be exercised by granting stay of recovery of tax. Shri Rajesh Kumar, on the other hand, has cited certain decisions of this Court. The same may be enumerated as Kurt O John ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e deposited by him under the aforesaid order is a very small sum. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that if 100 per cent waiver is not allowed the petitioner shall be put to undue hardship. 9.Now coming to the next question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that the fact on record shows that the petitioner has been declared a sick unit and no recovery could be made except in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 22 of B.I.F.R. regulations yet it may be seen that here in the instant case no recovery is being pressed against the petitioner. Besides this the scheme under the B.I.F.R. regulations provides for a sanctioned scheme and only those dues which are included in the package in a sanctioned sc....