Conveyor Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- - in the present application before the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal south regional bench at madras, i find that the tribunal has considered both the financial status of the petitioner as well as prima facie case in the appeal. i am satisfied that the tribunal has correctly approached the issue......petitioner. in the present application before the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal south regional bench at madras, i find that the tribunal has considered both the financial status of the petitioner as well as prima facie case in the appeal. learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the plea of limitation under section 11a of the central excises and salt act. i am satisfied that the tribunal has correctly approached the issue. however, a direction to pay the entire duty amount seems to be a little harsh on the petitioner. no doubt, the payment of the penalty of rs. 25,000/- has been dispensed with. i feel that the ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the duty amount as a condition for hearing the appeal. the petitioner is therefore directed to pay 50% of the differential duty within four weeks from today. in other respects, the order of the tribunal will stand confirmed.2. the writ petitioner is allowed in part in the above terms. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The impugned order in this writ petition is one passed under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act relating to per-deposit as a condition for filing an appeal. The original order imposes a differential duty of Rs. 76,517.20 and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner. In the present application before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal South Regional Bench at Madras, I find that the Tribunal has considered both the financial status of the petitioner as well as prima facie case in the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the plea of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. I am satisfied that the Tribunal has correctly approached the issue. However, a direction to pay the entire duty amount seems to be a little harsh on the petitioner. No doubt, the payment of the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been dispensed with. I feel that the ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the duty amount as a condition for hearing the appeal. The petitioner is therefore directed to pay 50% of the differential duty within four weeks from today. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal will stand confirmed.

2. The writ petitioner is allowed in part in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.