High CourtsDivision Bench

P.R. Industries vs Union of India (UOI)

Delhi High Court · Decided on 13 October 2006 · Citation: (2006) 10 DEL CK 0194

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikramajit Sen, J · Dr. S. Muralidhar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 — Section 35F
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 6960 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 403 words
1.

In the impugned Order, the CEGAT while hearing the Petitioner''s application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts of Rs. 1,12,29,515/- each had decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise (for the second time) consequent upon the Appellant having filed some documents, before the CEGAT. These documents had not been filed before the Commissioner, and, Therefore, the validity of the remand by the CEGAT on this ground would certainly be arguable. Initially this Court had directed notice to issue in this Petition and a stay had been granted quite clearly for the reason that the Order of CEGAT is difficult to sustain. Keeping in view the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the ordinary course, the CEGAT should have dealt with the Application for waiving of pre-deposit separately. If in its wisdom it considered it appropriate that only a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs should have been made the condition for hearing the Appeal, that Order should have been passed. Thereafter in compliance with this direction the Appeal should have been heard on merits. Having decided to remand the matter it was inappropriate for the CEGAT to have imposed a condition thereafter. We do not propose to go further in the matter since learned Counsel for the Petitioner now prays that the Petitioner be granted seven days within which to deposit the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs which was a condition for re-hearing of the matter by the Commissioner.

2.

Mr. Y.P. Narula, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently submits that the Petitioner had succeeded in stalling recovery proceedings for over five years and, Therefore, the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs should be further increased. We find it difficult to accede to this contention for the simple reason that, inexplicably, the Respondents have not assailed the impugned Order of the CEGAT.

3.

Having heard the matter in detail we restore the Writ Petition. We - enlarge time by seven days for the Petitioner to comply with the impugned Order. We restrain the Respondents from pursuing any steps in distress during this period of seven days. We clarify that if the amount is not deposited within the aforementioned seven days from today the Respondents shall be free to pursue whatever steps they deem expedient.

4.

The Writ Petition is disposed of. All pending Applications also stand disposed of.