BABU SAIDALY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers;

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner is a firm, viz., M/s Ess Bee Plywood Industries, engaged in the manufacture of different types of plywood and selling the same in the open market. From the year 2008, the petitioner has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act"). On 6/10/2012, the business premises of the petitioner were inspected by the Central Excise Officers and a search was conducted, consequent to which, Ext.P1 show cause notice dtd. 3/4/2013 for the years, 2009-10 to 2011- 12, was issued alleging certain defects in the books of accounts as well as suppression of manufactured quantity and value of excisable goods. Subsequently, Ext.P2 second show cause notice dtd. 31/3/2014 for the year, 2013-14, was issued with a proposal for assessment of excise duty by the Additional Director. Thereafter, as per Ext.P3 common order dtd. 7/9/2015, Ext.P1 show cause notice dtd. 3/4/2013 was dropped and Ext.P2 notice dtd. 31/3/2013 was finalized, upholding the estimated value and assessment of duty. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Along with the appeal, Ext.P5 stay application was also filed. Thereafter, as per Ext.P6 order dtd. 5/10/2016, the Tribunal dismissed Ext.P4 appeal as well as Ext.P5 stay application on the ground that the appeal memorandum is not supported with payment of pre-deposit as mandated in Sec. 35F of the Act, as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, with effect from 6/8/2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Manu, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.