Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Haryana Steel & Alloy Ltd vs C.C.E.- Delhi - Iv on 19 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
COURT NO. I
Date of Hearing/decision:19.02.2014
Appeal No. E/2844/2011 & E/797/2012 EX[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-appeal No.206/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2011, dt. 26.12.2011, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-IV]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member(Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Haryana Steel & Alloy Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E.- Delhi - IV Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. Nishant, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Yashpal Sharma, DR for the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO: 50682-50683/2013 Per Justice G.Raghuram:-
Matter is coming up for recording compliance with the order dt. 17.04.12 passed in the two appeals. This order disposed of applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay. Noticing that the adjudication order was not being challenged on merits but only financial hardship is pleaded, the order finding no justification for waiver of pre-deposit; and on a prima facie view that the appellants had abetted evasion of excise duty, by issuing invoices without supply of material, dismissed the stay application and directed pre-deposit of the adjudicated liability, within six weeks.
2. On 01.06.12, considering an application for extension of time for pre-deposit, time was extended by a further six weeks for the pre-deposit. When the matter was coming up for recording compliance with the order dt. 17.04.12, it was orally represented that a clarification is sought for review of the order. This oral request was rejected on 25.07.12 and a further one weeks time was granted to move an application for clarification; subject to deposit to cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
3. On 17.08.12 it was noticed that costs were not deposited. Subsequently the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant was adjourned to await pre-deposit of costs.
4. On 18.12.12 the miscellaneous application was considered and rejected.
5. On 14.06.13 an oral representation was advanced by counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had carried the matter to the Delhi High Court and due to jurisdictional aspects, appellants would approach the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. By the order dt. 14.06.13 notice was directed to the appellants to Show Cause while the appeal should not be dismissed. At that stage the matter is coming up from time to time.
6. When the issue of compliance with the order dt.17.04.12 is taken up today Sh. Nishant, Advocate, representing the counsel for the appellant Sh. Kshitiz Khera who is stated to be un-well seeks an adjournment. We notice that there is no adjudication process is listed in the matter today. Pre- deposit was ordered on 17.04.2012 while rejecting the stay application, or noticing that the appellants had failed to present a prima facie case and were found to have evaded excise duty by issuing invoices without supply of material. This order obligating pre-deposit has not been complied with for nearly two years now.
7. In the totally circumstances adverted to above, we find no justification whatsoever to await pre-deposit at the pleasure of the appellants, who have clearly abused the process of law.
8. The appeals we therefore rejected for failure of pre-deposit.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) S.Kaur 1