Shree Ram Multi Tech. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Shree Ram Multi Tech. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad Decided Oct 13, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43876

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/43876
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Judge: V T M., R Abichandani
Decided On: Oct 13, 2006
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shree Ram Multi Tech. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)(114)ECC66

Excerpt

.....while passing the interim order.2. it is argued before us by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant company is a sick unit. it appears that earlier, registration as a sick unit was denied, but later on by order dated 21.8.2006 of secretary, bifr the applicant was registered under section 15(1) of sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985(sica). however, in view of the decision of the supreme court in metal box india ltd. , protection under section 22 of sica is not available because payment of pre-deposit covered under section 35f is not covered any of the categories enumerated under section 22 of sica.3. even on merits, on going through the annual report of the applicant company, it is clear that the net fixed assets of the applicant are to the tune of about rs. 300 crores (29969.45 lacs) as on 31.3.2006.furthermore, under the head "investments current assets loans and advances", an amount of rs. 39.53 crores is shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2006. net current assets of the applicant are to the tune of rs. 391.71 crores. the balance sheet also shows the value of inventories to the tune of rs. 8.27 crores as on 31.3.2006. provision of income tax to the tune of rs. 1.72 crores is also made. mere loss in the year ending 31.3.2006 will not be the only criterion for deciding the financial condition of the applicant.4. therefore, having regard to the overall financial condition of the applicant, this is not a fit case for modifying the order requiring pre-deposit of rs. 3 crores (rupees three crores) by reducing that amount. this application is, therefore, rejected. the learned counsel at this stage prays for time to deposit the amount of rupees three crores. we grant time upto 21.12.2006 to enable the applicant to deposit the amount, failing which the appeal will stand dismissed. post the matter for compliance on 28.12.2006. this application stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application for modification of the stay order dated 8.8.2006 by which the applicant was required to deposit Rs. 3 crores (Rupees three crores) towards duty within eight weeks and report compliance by 13.10.2006. Instead of depositing the amount of rupees three crores as against the liability of more than Rs. 30 crores (Rupees thirty crores) towards duty and a penalty of the like amount, the applicant has chosen to apply for modification of the order on the ground that the plea of financial hardship was not considered while passing the interim order.

2. It is argued before us by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant company is a sick unit. It appears that earlier, registration as a sick unit was denied, but later on by order dated 21.8.2006 of Secretary, BIFR the applicant was registered under Section 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985(SICA). However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Metal Box India Ltd. , protection under Section 22 of SICA is not available because payment of pre-deposit covered under Section 35F is not covered any of the categories enumerated under Section 22 of SICA.3. Even on merits, on going through the annual report of the applicant company, it is clear that the net fixed assets of the applicant are to the tune of about Rs. 300 crores (29969.45 lacs) as on 31.3.2006.

Furthermore, under the head "investments current assets loans and advances", an amount of Rs. 39.53 crores is shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2006. Net current assets of the applicant are to the tune of Rs. 391.71 crores. The balance sheet also shows the value of inventories to the tune of Rs. 8.27 crores as on 31.3.2006. Provision of income tax to the tune of Rs. 1.72 crores is also made. Mere loss in the year ending 31.3.2006 will not be the only criterion for deciding the financial condition of the applicant.

4. Therefore, having regard to the overall financial condition of the applicant, this is not a fit case for modifying the order requiring pre-deposit of Rs. 3 crores (rupees three crores) by reducing that amount. This application is, therefore, rejected. The learned Counsel at this stage prays for time to deposit the amount of rupees three crores. We grant time upto 21.12.2006 to enable the applicant to deposit the amount, failing which the appeal will stand dismissed. Post the matter for compliance on 28.12.2006. This application stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahme... Same Parties Shree Ram Multi Tech. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge V T M., R Abichandani