Madras High Court
Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madras on 2 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(2)CTC391, 1995(51)ECC105, 1995(79)ELT23(MAD), (1995)IIMLJ397
ORDER K. A. Swami, C.J.
1. Writ Appeals 408 of 1993 and 281 of 1994 are preferred against the order dated 24-11-1993 passed on W.M.P. 31971 of 1993 filed in W.P. 7050 of 1993, where as Writ Appeal 202 of 1995 is preferred against the order dated 23-9-1993 passed on W.P. 7050 of 1993.
2. It may be pointed out here that writ miscellaneous petition 31971 of 1993 was filed to modify the conditions prescribed in the order dated 23-9-1993 passed in Writ Petition 7050 of 1993 regarding pre-deposit of the amount.
3. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 23-9-1993 passed in Writ Petition 7050 of 1993 modified the order of the CEGAT directing the appellant in writ appeal 1408 of 1993 to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lacs as against the duty assessed at Rs. 1,47,10,803/- plus Rs. 35 lacs penalty. The said sum of Rs. 50 lacs was directed to be deposited in two instalments.
4. The appellant in writ appeal 1408 of 1993 deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lacs and thereafter, sought for modification of the order dated 23-9-1993 by filing W.M.P. 31971 OF 1993.
5. Learned single Judge has further modified the final order passed in Writ Petition 7050 of 1993 by the order dated 24-11-1993 and directed the petitioner to deposit only Rs. 7 1/2 lacs instead of Rs. 15 lacs required to be deposited pursuant to the earlier order dated 23-9-1993. As the amount ordered was only Rs. 30 lacs as against Rs. 1,47,10,803/-, the Department has come up in Writ Appeal 281 of 1994 and the appellant in Writ Appeal 1408 of 1993 has filed Writ Appeal 202 of 1995 against the very same order contending that even a sum of Rs. 30 lacs should not have been ordered to be deposited.
6. We may point out here that the Tribunal has elaborately considered the contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal preferred before it and has taken into consideration prima facie the merits of the appeal and also the hardship that would be caused to the appellant before it, in the event it were to deposit the entire sum as adjudicated. Consequently, it has limited the deposit a little over one/fifth of the duty assessed. Thereafter, the learned single Judge in Writ Petition 7050 of 1993 on 23-9-1993 has further reduced the amount of Rs. 30 lacs. While reducing the amount to Rs. 30 lacs, learned single Judge has also taken into consideration the availability of funds with the petitioner therein. That being so, we do not consider that there is any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge dated 23rd September, 1993. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge are found in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the order which we do not consider it necessary to re-produce. When once the writ petition is disposed of on merits, such a final order passed on the writ petition cannot at all be re-opened and the order cannot be modified, unless a review of the said order is sought in accordance with law. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed on W.M.P. 31971 of 1993 cannot be considered to be a valid order. If such a practice or precedent is allowed to continue or accepted as the correct one, there is no finality attached to any order passed. Therefore, we are of the view that on this ground alone, the order dated 24-11-1993 is liable to be set aside. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 23-9-1993 passed in Writ Petition 7050 of 1993, the only course open to it was to either prefer an appeal or seek a review. The course adopted to have the order modified by filing an interlocutory application cannot be approved as the correct procedure. As far as the order dated 23-9-1993 is concerned, we have already held that the same does not call for interference. Accordingly, W.A. 202 of 1995 and 1408 of 1993 are dismissed. However, Writ Appeal 281 of 1994 which is preferred against the order dated 24-11-1993 passed in W.M.P. 31971 of 1993 is allowed. The order dated 24-11-1993 is set aside and W.M.P. 31971 of 1993 is dismissed. The C.M.P. is also dismissed. No order as to costs. The petitioner in the writ petition is granted time till the end of April, 1995 to deposit the remaining sum of Rs. 7 1/2 lacs. On depositing the said amount, the CEGAT is directed to hear and decide the appeal in accordance with law, within 2 months from the date of deposit.