OMPRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent petition taken on board for hearing.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the undated order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (Ex. 'p' to the writ petition), by which, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the petitioner to deposit the duty of Rs. 15,12,500/- and penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/imposed on M/s. Jupiter Chemical Industries as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal. We have heard Mr. Vahanvati, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is harsh and unreasonable. According to him, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have admitted the appeal without any requirement of pre-deposit of duty or penalty. Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was justified in insisting on pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty. He further submits that in the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has himself dispensed with the requirement of pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- levied on the petitioner as a proprietor of the said concern.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the impugned order can be modified and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed to admit the appeal on pre-deposit of the duty of Rs. 15,12,500/- only. Requirement of pre-deposit of penalty may be dispensed with. We modify the impugned order accordingly. On deposit of the same, the appeals of the petitioner Mr. Agarwal and the concern M/s. Jupiter Chemical industries of which he is a proprietor shall be admitted and heard on merits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from today.