SURAJ PRAKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, the learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinod Kant Srivastava appears on behalf of the respondents. By means of the present appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated January 21, 2013, passed on the waiver-cum-stay application, under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the application and has asked the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 7.05 lakhs.

(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the appellant is a director of M/s. Ram Shiv Industries Limited. For the relevant period in dispute a sum of Rs. 2.44 crores have been demanded by the impugned order, dated September 18, 2008, passed by the Commissioner. Further, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs have been demanded towards penalty imposed on the appellant, being the director of the company. Against the order of the Commissioner, both the company as well as the appellant filed appeals along with waiver-cum-stay application. It appears that the waiver-cum-stay application of the company has been considered by the Tribunal, which has been allowed in part and the company has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs and the rest of the amount has been waived. It appears that the company has not deposited the said amount within the stipulated period and, therefore, the appeals filed by the company as well as by the appellant have been dismissed. It appears that the company has not challenged the said order of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, for want of non-compliance of the order. However, the appellant has challenged the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, before this court on the ground that no order has been passed on the waiver/stay application in the case of the appellant and, therefore, dismissal of the appeal was unjustified. This court allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Tribunal to decide the waiver/stay application, under section 35F of the Act. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was only the director of the company and was getting only a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month as salary. In support of the contention, along with the waiver/stay application, he filed a certificate issued by the Tehsildar showing his income as Rs. 4,000 per month. He further submitted that though in his first statement, the appellant stated that the manufacturing premises of the party was under his control and he was responsible for day-to-day work of the party and other two directors were not responsible for the same, but on the very next day, he retracted from the statement and, therefore, on the basis of the earlier statement, the appellant cannot be held responsible and having regard to the income and the financial condition of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have waived the requirement of pre-deposit.