The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 32 lacs and imposing costs. The Court found no illegality or perversity, dismissed the appeal, but extended the time for depositing the amount by two weeks.
Extension of two weeks for depositing the amount ordered by the Tribunal.
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.
CEA No.39 of 2011 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CEA No.39 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 26.09.2012
M/s Kap Cones (P) Limited
-----Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise and another
----Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
Present:Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
32 lacs as pre-deposit as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal alongwith 10,000/- as costs. Following substantial questions of law have been claimed by the appellant:-“a) Whether impugned order is perverse and contrary to record?
b) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified to order appellant to deposit 32 lacs when 85 lacs already stands deposited as cash or bank guarantee?
c) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified to impose cost upon the appellant?
CEA No.39 of 2011 (O&M)
2
d) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified to order deposit when the appellant has strong prima facie case on merits?
e) Whether grave and palpable injustice would be caused to the appellants if the respondents are permitted to execute the legal order?”
1,70,47,975/- involving Cenvat credit of 35,80,142/- were found apart from stock of finished goods and raw material. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly on verification of stocks in Unit No.1, finished goods were found in excess of the balance recorded. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 23.3.2009 was issued to the appellant to pay a sum of 57,37,690/- in respect of Cenvat credit availed on capital goods. The appellant submitted reply to the notice. After considering the matter, vide order dated 15.7.2011, Annexure A.5, respondent No.1 confirmed the duty amounting to 57,37,690/-, disallowed Cenvat Credit of inputs amounting to 24,21,464/- and denied credit amounting to 7 lacs in respect of goods found short. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal alongwith stay application inCEA No.39 of 2011 (O&M)
3
terms of Section 35F of the Act. Vide order dated 3.7.2012, Annexure A.7, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of 32 lacs as pre-deposit for hearing the appeal. The appellant filed an application for modification of the order dated 3.7.2012. Vide order dated 30.8.2012, Annexure A.9, the Tribunal not only dismissed the application but imposed costs of10,000/- upon the appellant. Hence this appeal.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
September 26, 2012 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) 'gs' Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal?
Whether costs should be imposed on the appellant by the Tribunal?
Whether the appellant was causing grave and palpable injustice if the order is allowed to be executed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Kap Cones (P) Limited
Commissioner of Central Excise
Another
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court