Dismissed

M/S Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2012CWP/20740/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this consumer protection matter, the petitioner challenged an inter-locutory order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims that service tax had already been paid by third parties and found no legal infirmity in the appellate authority's significant u

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-; directed to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs.

M/S Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Union… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 20740 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 20740 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 12 .1.2012

¶5

M/s Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd.

¶6

. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India and others

¶9

.. Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr.M.P.Devnath , Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents

¶12

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶13

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

M.M.KUMAR,J.

¶15

Instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing inter-locutory order dated 18.10.2011 rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the petitioner has been directed to predeposit a sum of rupees twenty lakhs as pre-condition for hearing of the appeal. In the order-in-original dated 23.3.2011, the Addl. Commissioner ( Adjudication) has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 33,50,954/and ordered the recovery from the petitioner under Section 73 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity 'the Act') by invoking extended period of limitation. It was further directed that interest at the appropriate rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 2008 be also recovered and penalty of equivalent amount of demand of service tax was imposed under Section 78 of the Act.

¶16

During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner raised various new issues before the appellate authority claiming that service tax stood

¶17

CWP No. 20740 of 2011 2

¶18

paid by its corporate office, vendor and transporter and therefore service tax was not leviable and realizable from the petitioner. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner is discernible from para 3 of the impugned order (P.1). However, the Commissioner ( Appeals) concluded that the entire matter needs to examined in detail before arriving at a decision regarding correct quantification of amount of service tax and directed the petitioner to deposit a duty of rupees twenty lakhs as pre-deposit under Section 35 F of the Act within 20 days of that order and file documents in support of the claim made by them. The remaining amount of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority was stayed.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel at some length and are of the view that the discretion exercised by the appellate authority in passing the inter-locutory order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The claim made by the petitioner before the Commissioner ( Appeals) has not been substantiated so far. The documents in support of the claim are yet to be co-related to the duty which might have been paid by the petitioner's corporate office, transporter or vendor. The aforesaid documents are yet to be produced before the Appellate Authority. There is no document on the record for us to presume that the petitioner has discharged the liability through any one else of paying service tax. We do not feel persuaded by any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the duty claimed by the respondents has already been paid. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners are however directed to deposit the amount of rupees twenty lakhs as per the directions of the Commissioner ( Appeals) within a period

¶20

CWP No. 20740 of 2011

¶21

¶22

of two weeks from today.

¶23

The costs shall be deposited with the Member Secretary, Union Territory Legal Services Authority within two weeks. If the cost is not deposited the matter be listed for appropriate orders.

¶24

(M.M.Kumar) Judge

¶25

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) 12.1.2012 Judge

¶26

okg

M/S Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Birla Tyres Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Universal Chemists Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

M/S J.K.Builders & Contractors Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Pepsi Food Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Mohan Kishan Roller Flour Mills Jalandhar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Deepak Pipes Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.