SUPER INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges orders dated 17 -12 -2007 (Annexure -C) and 6 - 5 -2008 (Annexure -F) whereunder the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (CESTAT) directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores out of total demand of Rs. 4.02 crores within the period specified.

(2.) THE petitioner is principally aggrieved by the second order dated 6 -5 -2008 and the learned Advocate for the petitioner has concentrated and made submissions only in regard to the said order made by CESTAT. CESTAT had vide order dated 17 -12 -2007, after hearing the parties and recording concession of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, as to admitted liability to the tune of Rs. 90 lacs, reduced the total amount payable as pre -deposit to the tune of Rs. 2 crores in exercise of its discretionary powers under Section 35 -F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act). The petitioner moved a modification application requesting the Tribunal to modify its order dated 17 -12 -2007 on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to total exemption by virtue of notification on which reliance was placed, namely, Notification No. 6/2000 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2000. CESTAT has rejected the said modification application by observing as under :

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the impugned order dated 6 -5 -2008 contending that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the merits of the claim of the petitioner being governed by the aforesaid Notification. It is further submitted that once the petitioner was not liable to pay duty by virtue of entry at Sr. No. 253 of the said Notification dated 1 -3 -2000 any order of pre -deposit in exercise of powers under Section 35 -F of the Act would be bad in law considering the fact that this was an issue which went to the root of the controversy. In support of the submissions made reliance has been placed on Supreme Court judgment in case of Benara Valves Ltd. and Ors. v Commissioner of Central Excise and Anr., 2006 204 ELT 513to submit that the concept of undue hardship as envisaged by Section 35 -F of the Act has to take into consideration peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the Tribunal is not expected to dispose of a petition for stay in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring an assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. That denial of interim relief should not be such as to shake a citizen s faith in the impartiality of public administration.