Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Aip Industries Ludhiana vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And Anr on 10 December, 2014
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, B.S.Walia
CEA No.13 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CEA No.13 of 2014
Date of Decision: 10.12.2014
M/s AIP Industries, Ludhiana ..Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA
Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The appellant challenges orders dated 4.6.2013 and 12.8.2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing his application for stay and the appeal.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not in a position to pre-deposit any amount, much less the amount demanded by the revenue. The appellant having debited Cenvat credit and filed ER-1 return, the duty demanded stood paid. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in directing the appellant to pay Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards penalty as a pre-condition of the hearing of the appeal as his entire property has been attached by the revenue. The Tribunal did not take the financial hardship of the appellant into consideration. The appeal has also been dismissed for failure to deposit this amount.
KUMAR VIRENDER2014.12.16 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh CEA No.13 of 2014 2
We have heard counsel for the appellant, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, are not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant. A perusal of the facts reveals that the appellant obtained a central excise registration for manufacture of copper ingots etc. on monthly basis. The appellant claimed and obtained a huge Cenvat credit, i.e., Rs.6,52,21,254/- for the period from August 2006 to May, 2007. A visit to the appellant's factory disclosed that the appellant did not possess requisite wherewithal to manufacture ingots etc. The fraud perpetuated by the appellant was, thus, discovered. The Tribunal rightly directed the appellant to pay Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards a penalty of more than Rs.7,00,00,000/- but as the appellant failed to abide by this order, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2013.
The discretion exercised by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor arbitrary and as it does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The fact that the appellant's property has been attached, does not entitle the appellant to any relief.
Dismissed.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
JUDGE
10.12.2014 ( B.S. WALIA )
VK JUDGE
KUMAR VIRENDER
2014.12.16 14:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this docunt
High Court Chandigarh