LACURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 11/18 -12 - 2008 2009 246 ELT 177 in Stay Application No. E/S/1288 -1289/2008, whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lacs within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

(2.) THE principal grievance ventilated by learned advocate for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed an error in law in not following its own order dated 30 -11 -2006 made in the first round whereby certain directions were given to the adjudicating authority to reconcile the factual position with the statutory records, more particularly, Part -I and Part -II of RG -23A register. It is submitted, in the first round between the parties, the Tribunal itself had unconditionally granted stay against recovery of entire demand raised by respondent authority but after the order of remand dated 30 -11 -2006, in which, categorical directions have been issued, the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that adjudicating authority had not complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in the first round. It was submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has made out an entirely new case and thus, deviated from the principle of judicial discipline. Lastly, it was submitted that, in the alternative, the total demand relatable to the three items in relation to which the Tribunal has called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lacs, the total amount of duty involved is Rs. 19 lacs and odd and thus, it virtually amounts to directing deposit of 100% duty amount.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned order, the Court does not find it to be a fit case to intervene. None of the parameters which would permit the Court to intervene are shown to be violated. The Tribunal in its exercise of discretionary jurisdiction has taken into consideration all the facts, the evidence on record, the respective stands of the parties and the contentions in support thereof, as well as all parameters for determining whether demand raised should be stayed in entirety or partially. If Tribunal, in its exercise of discretionary powers, comes to the conclusion, on the basis of evidence on record, that against total demand of Rs. 70 lacs and odd, a sum of Rs. 18 lacs should be deposited by the petitioner, it is not possible to state that the exercise of such discretion is vitiated in any manner whatsoever. It is also not possible to state that the impugned order is not a reasoned order. At this stage the Court is not required to examine the merits or demerits of the case of either side. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, the Court does not find this to be a fit case to intervene.