Telecom Industries vs Union of India (UOI)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai dated 28th December 1998, by which the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai rejected the prayer of the petitioner for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of duty, etc. as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal and directed the petitioner to deposit entire disputed demand within four weeks from the date of the order.

We have heard Mr. Wasnik, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents. Both the learned Counsels are agreed that in view of the limited nature of the controversy in this case, this writ petition should be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Hence, rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, writ petition taken on board for hearing and final disposal.

Mr. Wasnik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for relaxation of the requirement of pre-deposit is most arbitrary and unreasonable. He submits that the order does not contain any reason for the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has a good prima facie case. Mr. Wasnik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, also submits that the dispute of the petitioner in regard to classification of the goods now stands concluded by the Tribunal in favour of the tax-payer. He, therefore, submits that this is a fit case for relaxation of requirements of pre-deposit. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is not correct to say that the dispute stands concluded in favour of the tax-payer. According to him, the dispute is pending before the Supreme Court. He also submits that this is not a fit case for relaxation of the requirement of pre-deposit.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the nature of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for relaxation of requirement of pre-deposit. As the matter is still to be examined and decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on merits, we do not propose to discuss at length the merits of the case or make any observation regarding thereto. Suffice it to say that, in our opinion, there is a good prime facie case in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that ends of justice in this case will be met if the impugned order is set aside and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is directed to admit the appeal on deposit of 50% of the disputed demand on account of duty, penalty, etc. within four weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may admit the appeal and hear the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from today.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.