The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an appeal order and direct disposal without pre-deposit. The court upheld the requirement of Rs. 15 lakhs pre-deposit imposed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to make pre-deposit payment by 18.03.2013.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
W.P(MD)No.3162 of 2013 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
Madura Coats Limited, Rep.by its Manager-Excise & Legal, No.35, New Jail Road, Madurai-625 001.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Central Revenue Buildings, Madurai-2.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai-I Division, Bibikulam,Madurai-2. ... Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent culminating in the order attested by the Superintendent (Appeals) of the Central Excise on 18.02.2013 in Appeal No.383 of 2012 quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to dispose of the said appeal without insistence on pre-deposit.
For Petitioner :Mr.Sriram Panchu,
Senior Counsel for Ms.D.Geetha.
For Respondents :Mr.R.Aravindan
ORDER
This petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent culminating in the order attested by the Superintendent (Appeals) of the Central Excise on 18.02.2013 in Appeal No.383 of 2012 quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to dispose of the said appeal without insistence on pre-deposit.
2.Mr.Sriram Panju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent passed an order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ confirming the total payment of Rs.16,80,553/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three only) along with interest and also imposed penalty of the same amount under Section
2
11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Rule 9(2) and Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further submitted that while the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)as a condition for granting of waiver of predeposit and against the same this writ is filed. He further submitted that Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) ordered to be deposited by the first respondent was arrived at by applying 44.63% on the total amount of demand and penalty and in the other writ in W.P(MD)No.3161 of 2013 the respondents applied 35.63% on the total amount and the same percentage can be applied in this case also and such amount shall be ordered to be deposited.
3.I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. In this petition the penalty has been mentioned in the show-cause notice and therefore considering the quantum of amount involved, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) for claiming of waiver of pre deposit and hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to make the payment for pre-deposit on or before 18.03.2013. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
gsr
TO
I.T.
W.P(MD)No.3162 of 2013
08.03.2013
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rg.11.03.2013 2p/5c
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the pre-deposit requirement in the appeal registration order should be allowed or dismissed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Madura Coats Limited
Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals)
Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise
R.S.Ramanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
