TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipt of a certain report alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of the aforesaid excisable good from the office-cum-factory premises of the petitioner, the Anti-Evasion Branch of the Central Excise Commissioner, Delhi appears to have conducted a search. A scrutiny of the records recovered from the said premises pertaining to various contracts undertaken by the petitioner, reveals that the petitioner was manufacturing and clearing the goods in excess of the value on which Central Excise duty was paid from the year 1997-98 onwards. Statement of Shri Sanjiv Chaudhary, one of the partners of the petitioner, was also, in the course of these investigations, recorded, which eventually culminated in the issue of two show cause notices dated 7-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 30th of November, 2004, by which the petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,12,93,323/- and a penalty of an equivalent amount apart from a penalty of Rs. 20 lacs levied upon the partner of the petitioner. The petitioner has aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and filed an application under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of the deposit of the duty amount and the penalty levied upon it. The Tribunal has vide its order dated 4-5-2005 partly allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 75 lacs within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order. Upon payment of the said amount, the Tribunal has waived the pre-deposit of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court dated 29-6-2005 has also been deposited by the petitioner on 28th of November, 2005. He urged that the deposits made by the petitioner till date comes to Rs. 20 lacs which, according to the learned counsel, was sufficient to meet the ends of justice keeping in view of the nature of the controversy raised in the appeal before the Tribunal, as also the orders passed by the Tribunal in the earlier appeals pending before it arising out of the earlier two show cause notices issued to the petitioner. He urged that the financial condition of the petitioner does not allow the petitioner to deposit a substantial amount like Rs. 75 lacs directed to be deposited by the Tribunal. It was submitted that the issue that fell for consideration b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner. 11.Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires the party against whom duty demand has been raised to pre-deposit the entire amount so demanded before its appeal against the order under challenge can be heard by the Tribunal. That appears to be the ordinary rule inasmuch as any appeal against determination and demand of duty can be heard only if the duty is deposited by the person desirous of appealing against any such order. The first proviso to Section 35-F, however, vests the Appellate Tribunal with the power to dispense with such pre-deposit imposing such conditions as it may deem fit with a view to safeguarding the interests of the Revenue. It is evident from a plain reading of the proviso that the power vested in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made a demand of Rs. 75 lacs. The impugned order by which the Tribunal has demanded a pre-deposit of Rs. 75 lacs works out to be the 75% of the duty amount determined against the petitioner. This is much higher in comparison to the pre-deposit demanded in connection with the earlier appeal where the amount of pre-deposit works out to about 10% of the total amount of duty demanded from the petitioner. With the facts forming the basis of the two demands being the same, we see no reason why the same yardstick as adopted in the earlier appeal could not be adopted by the Tribunal in the case at hand. A deposit of Rs. 20 lacs in that view would suffice and meet the ends of justice having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the case. T....