wp6530.09 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6530 OF 2009 M/s. Niranjan Alloys Steels Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Suresh W. Munde, advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 29TH JUNE, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 This petition impugns the order passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “CESTAT”) on 19.12.2005. 2 The petition has been filed on 15.9.2009 i.e. after a delay of four years. No reasons have been mentioned in the petition for the said delay, except for stating that the factory of the petitioner was closed from 28.3.2003 and the petitioner has paid a one time settlement amount to the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation in wp6530.09 -2- the year 2008-2009. 3 Apart from the fact that the petition should be rejected on the ground of laches, we have considered the merits of the petitioner's case. The petitioner contends that the impugned order directing the deposit of the entire amount of duty, which was not contested by the petitioner and 50% of the penalty amount is erroneous. 4 The Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad in the original application has confirmed the demand of Rs.14,43,205/- under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 r.w. Rule 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has further imposed a penalty of the like amount under the provision of Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 and directed recovery of interest of an appropriate amount under Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules r.w. Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5 Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals). The order passed in the original application has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The CESTAT has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of duty, which was not contested by it and 50% of the penalty amount by its order dated wp6530.09 -3- 19.12.2005, as a precondition for stay of the order impugned before it. Since that order had not been complied, the appeal has been dismissed by the CESTAT. 6 We do not find it necessary to interfere with the order impugned in the present petition, firstly because there is gross delay on the part of the petitioner and secondly because the petitioner failed to obey the earlier order passed by the CESTAT. The petition is rejected. ( M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) rlj/