Chawla Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Excise
2001-08-24
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA
body2001
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. On September 15, 2000, The Commissioner, Central Excise (Adj.) raised a demand for Rs. 4,78,37,028/- by way of payment of excise duty. A penalty of 100%, viz. Rs. 4,78,37,028/- was also imposed. Interest at the rate of 20% was also levied. Still further, an additional penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- each was imposed on the two partners, viz. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Another penalty of Rs. 1,00,04,000/- was also imposed. 2. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners approached the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Vide order dated January 3, 2001, the Tribunal directed that petitioner No. 1 shall deposit rupees one crore towards payment of the excise duty and Rs. 20 lacs towards penalty. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to deposit Rs. 5 lacs each towards penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. It is alleged that the demand is wholly arbitrary. The order of the Tribunal requiring the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- imposes an unbearable burden and virtually denies the right to file an appeal against the impugned levy. On this basis, it is prayed that the order of the Tribunal be quashed. 3. Notice of motion was issued. A written statement has been filed. 4. Counsels for the parties have been heard. 5. On April 5, 2001 the case was posted before a Bench of this Court consisting of Honble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Honble Mr. Justice Nirmal Singh. Their Lordships were pleased to direct petitioner No. 1 to deposit Rs. 50 lacs. We are informed by the Counsel for the parties that the requisite deposit has been made. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we feel satisfied that a substantial amount of money has already been deposited. The petitioners are only seeking the hearing of their appeal. Their liability shall be determined by the Appellate Authority and the deposit already made should suffice. Resultantly, we modify the order of the Tribunal and direct that the appeal shall be heard on merits on the deposit already made. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. No costs.