Partap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. C.E.G.A.T. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
stay - prima facie case--collector's decision contrary to judgements of two high courts is sufficient. refusal of waiver not sound. cegat directed to hear appeal within 3 months without pre-deposit but on bank guarantee. cesa: section 35f. - - ) is contrary to the view taken by the two high courts in the county with the result that the units manufacturing the products, which the petitioners manufacture in the area situated of those high courts are better placed so far all india competition of sale is concerned.order1. shri kohli for the petitioner and shri b.g. neema for the union of india.2. the short point involved in this case is whether the customs excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal has erred in not dispensing the condition of deposit of the duty, pending hearing the appeal. shri kohli submits that the view taken by the collector central excise (m.p.) is contrary to the view taken by the two high courts in the county with the result that the units manufacturing the products, which the petitioners manufacture in the area situated of those high courts are better placed so far all india competition of sale is concerned. admittedly, while deciding an application under section 35(f) of the central excises and salt act, 1944, the cegat has to look into the existence of prima facie case also and has not to look into financial hardship only.3. in our opinion, the contrary views expressed by the two of the high courts in the country, are sufficient indication that a prima facie case in favour of the appellants before the cegat and the petitioner before us. the cegat's insistance on deposit of the duty under the impugned order is, therefore, arbitrary and not based on sound principles. as the point involved was short, we heard the case finally at this state alone and while disposing of this petition we direct that the appeal shall be heard without insisting on a condition of pre-deposit of the amount of duty. the appeal shall be disposed of by the cegat within three months from today. the petitioner shall, however, furnish a bank guarantee within a month from today for the amount equivalent to the amount, which was required to be deposited as a pre-condition of the maintainability of appeal. c.c. today on charge.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Shri Kohli for the petitioner and Shri B.G. Neema for the Union of India.

2. The short point involved in this case is whether the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has erred in not dispensing the condition of deposit of the duty, pending hearing the appeal. Shri Kohli submits that the view taken by the Collector Central Excise (M.P.) is contrary to the view taken by the two High Courts in the county with the result that the units manufacturing the products, which the petitioners manufacture in the area situated of those High Courts are better placed so far All India Competition of Sale is concerned. Admittedly, while deciding an application under Section 35(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the CEGAT has to look into the existence of prima facie case also and has not to look into financial hardship only.

3. In our opinion, the contrary views expressed by the two of the High Courts in the country, are sufficient indication that a prima facie case in favour of the appellants before the CEGAT and the petitioner before us. The CEGAT's insistance on deposit of the duty under the impugned order is, therefore, arbitrary and not based on sound principles. As the point involved was short, we heard the case finally at this state alone and while disposing of this petition we direct that the appeal shall be heard without insisting on a condition of pre-deposit of the amount of duty. The appeal shall be disposed of by the CEGAT within three months from today. The petitioner shall, however, furnish a bank guarantee within a month from today for the amount equivalent to the amount, which was required to be deposited as a pre-condition of the maintainability of appeal. C.C. today on charge.