RAJU METAL INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal') granting partial stay while dealing with an application for waiver of pre -deposit and dismissing the appeal for non -compliance of such order. Petitioner was assessed to extra demands of duty amounting to Rs. 1,08,35,181/ -and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Central Excise Act, 1944. Same is under challenge before the Tribunal. By order dated 4th February, 2000 Tribunal directed deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of 12 weeks from the date of order. It was directed that the matter was to come up on 9th May, 2000 for compliance. When the matter was taken up on 9th May, 2000 an application was filed for dispensing with the pre -deposit and for permitting the petitioner to furnish security bond for Rs. 25 lakhs. Tribunal did not accept this prayer and only extended the time for deposit by eight weeks. It was directed to post the case for 12th July, 2000 for reporting compliance. As the amount had not been deposited the appeal was dismissed for non -compliance.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner stated that considering the fact that purchases were from concerns like MMTC, there was no scope for levy of duty as the petitioner purchased rejected alloys of various non -ferrous metals which are duty paid. Besides manufacturing alloys of copper, aluminium, zinc it also manufactures alloy nickel, tin and lead which are chargeable to duty and the other alloys are exempted under various exemption notifications. Tribunal took note of the stand of respondent which, inter alia, in essence, was to the effect that petitioner could not submit figures of clearance of the impugned goods from their records to the authorities and Collector, in adjudication order, had observed that petitioner did not cooperate with the Department. Tribunal did not think it appropriate to take into consideration some certificates as these were not produced before the adjudicating authority, and were obtained much after adjudication of the case. Taking into account financial situation of the petitioner and the extent of turnover, direction was given to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs.

(3.) IN cases of this nature there is little scope for interference, particularly when appeal has already been dismissed for non -compliance with the direction for deposit. Tribunal has taken note of the relevant facts and directed deposit Rs. 25 lakhs. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions. However, if the deposit is made by 9th February, 2001, and this aspect is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it would do well to restore the appeal for disposal on merits.