GOBIND EXPELLER CO. PVT. LTD. Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order, we shall dispose of Central Excise Appeal Nos. 45 and 46 of 2013, as they involve adjudication of a similar question of law, namely, whether in similar circumstances, the Tribunal could pass different orders. Counsel for the appellant submits that apart from the fact that the financial hardship of the appellant has not been considered much less adverted to, the Tribunal, in a similar case where trademark was being used by two different firms, was waived the condition of pre -deposit, whereas in the case of the appellant, it has held to the contrary, though, it was accepted before the Tribunal that both the appellants use the same trademark. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was not produced before the Assessing Officer, is entirely irrelevant as there was no occasion at that stage to produce the MOU nor was any order passed requiring the appellant to produce the MOU. It is further submitted that the appellants are financially incapable of paying the demand raised by the respondents.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Revenue, however, submits that as the learned Tribunal has, in the exercise of its discretion, already accepted the appellant's application for stay by reducing the amount of pre -deposit to 50% of the demand raised, the impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary and, therefore, does not call for interference.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has reduced payment of pre -deposit by the appellant to 50% of the amount. However, in the case of M/s. Mankoo Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ludhiana ( : 2012 (284) E.L.T. 515 (Tri. -Del.)), when a similar question, namely, the common use of a trademark by two different entities arose, has while basing its opinion on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Bhalla Enterprises ( : 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.), held as follows: -