MAYO INDIA LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.1995 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (in short CEGAT), directing the petitioner to make a pre- deposit of an amount of Rs. five lakhs on a condition prece- dent for entertaining the appeal of the petitioner, has preferred this writ petition seeking to challenge the said order passed by the CEGAT on the application for stay and dispensation of pre-deposit.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that one of the major contentions of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the stay application before the CEGAT was that in respect of the manufacture of excisable goods at the places of the loan licencees, the Excise department had collected the duty from the loan licencees, thereby recognising the loan licencees to be the 'manufacturer' in. respect of the said goods and accordingly in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules providing that the duty is to be paid by and collected from the person who produces or manufactures the excisable goods, the respondent department has no jurisdiction to collect duty from the petitioner in respect of the same goods for the second time. According to the petitioner the actions of the respondent department in levying duty on the same goods for the second time on the petitioner amounts to double taxation and therefore, ex facie is not leviable.

(3.) The learned counsel drew our attention to the memorandum of appeal filed before the CEGAT and particularly to paragraph 6 of the same wherein the aforesaid contention was specifically raised by the petitioner. We were also taken through the impugned order passed by the CEGAT. We find that CEGAT although has specifically dealt with the pleas of the petitioner with regard to the demand being time barred and the issues arising in the appeal filed by the petitioner being directly and squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by several judgments of the CEGAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court and also with regard to the plea of undue hardship that would be caused to the petitioner, if the petitioner's plea for waiver of pre-deposit of the demand is not accepted, did not at all consider the aforesaid plea raised by the petitioner with regard to the demand being without jurisdiction as it would amount to double taxation.