PNP 1 WP10343-29.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10343 OF 2011 Hanil Era Textiles Limited ..Petitioner. versus Commissioner of Central Excise ..Respondent. ..... Mr. M.M. Vashi i/b M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondent. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 29 November 2011. P.C. : The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on an application for waiver of pre-deposit has directed the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.20 lacs. The application was for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty of Rs.1.01 Crores interest and penalty. The Tribunal has granted a waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty and as regards the duty directed a deposit of Rs.20 lacs out of a demand of Rs.1.01 Crores. The finding of the Adjudicating Officer is that the Petitioner as a 100% EOU cleared a certain quantity of acrylic yarn and blended yarn to the domestic tariff area by availing of a notification bearing No.23 /2003 dated 31 March 2003. The condition of the notification is that goods should be produced or manufactured only from indigenous raw material. The finding of fact is that the Petitioner had not produced evidence to establish PNP 2 WP10343-29.11.sxw compliance with the notification. At this stage, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is manifestly fair and does not warrant interference. The Petitioner has placed on record certain other orders of the Tribunal in other cases. The Tribunal in its order dated 21 November 2005 in another case had directed a deposit of Rs.5 lacs out of a total demand of Rs.43.10 lacs. In a subsequent order dated 25 August 2006 the Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of Rs.4.50 lacs out of an amount of Rs.9.36 lacs. In an order dated 10 September 2007 the Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of an amount representing 12% of the total duty. There can be no mathematical precision as regards the quantum of deposit which must depend upon the facts of each case. The order impugned in this case cannot be regarded as disproportionate or arbitrary. No case for exercise of the writ jurisdiction is made out. The Petitioner is accordingly dismissed. Time to deposit the duty is extended by a period of four weeks from today. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)