%%....‘;;‘6“"\' $333” W $3¥ mm: m @i‘w‘i,..-->"” . ' é . ' C iv ”2351/ . @x‘z' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR TH x (”rm (b ‘Fl CHHATTISGARH v u. . ' . z, No. CL 2007 v #ELLANT XM/s Prachi Resinsx\Pvt. Ltd. Through Pramod Lunawat Director; Village— Bharampura, VIP, Road Raipur [C.G.] VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENT /€‘he Commissioner 1 “m . Central Excise, Kai (”WM ?c\ \\ %‘$%: Central Revenue Building W3 , «Xx RNK§$Q Gwevtékgia 5% m C‘1V1 ‘11'mes Ralpur ' [C .G. ] APPEAL U S 35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 1 1 J”11 1 Innnr ..... .‘l ‘ € XI-HC-22 ma WWW mm 15. 01 . 2007 On being men‘rioned, *he 1'1‘er‘ is ‘faken—up for hearing. 5hri Prafeek Sharma, co sei for- fhe appellanfi‘ 5hri Bhisma Kinger, Sfan ing counseJ for fhe respondent Heard. Commissianer of Cemri Excise, respondeh? herein passed an elaborafe order- 0n 31.03.20 6, imposing excise du‘ly amounfing f0 Rs.50,79,088/- and penalty of fhe; same amoun'l' againsf the pefifianer. Feeling aggrieved, peiii‘ioner fil d an appeal before ihe Cusfoms, Excise and Service Tax Appellafe Tribunal, New Delhi (hencefor'rh “fhe Tribunal“)iand alsa moved an applicai'ion for gr n? of s‘l‘ay. The T'r‘ibunal passed o ‘ dated 15.11.2006; fhe apera‘iive pari- of ihe same order reads as below : ”In View of f/H‘s‘, we do of find any subs'fance in f/ris confenf/‘on of fhe appe anf for fofa/ waiver of pre- depos'if. Having regard o fhe facts and circumsfances of fhe case, we direcf f af fhere shall be infer/'01 sfay of fhe impLgned orde on fhe appe!lanf company deposifing a sum of R lakhs {Rupees Twenfy Lakhs an/y) wifhin 3 weeks foday, fai/ing which fhe appeals of fhe defa fing appellanfs ska/l sfand dismissed. 0n de'posifi g fhe amounf fhere she/f be waiver of resf of f/1e ounf of penalfy payable by fhem. ” Learned counsel for The oppellan? relied on Judgmeni‘s rendered ‘i +he maffers of Dhakesmri fion Mills Limifed Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, re orfed in (5) AIR 1955 SC 65 & Swadeshi w) a r r s. m n o 3mm WW WWW r7— - WW§WW &} padmo Coffon Mi“: Vs Union of India repom‘ed in (1981) 1 SCC 664 com-ended Thaf faii' opporfunify has nof be en allowed 1-0 ‘rhe appeHanf by fhe Tribunal. We have gone Through bofh T cases, and arelof fhe opinian fha‘r on fac+s and in fhe circumsfances of 1 e insfanf case, The principle enunciafed in bofh ‘l'he cases are no? applicabl ’ro The presenf one. Quesfions formulm'ed fhe appeHan‘r are open for consider-ofion before fhe Tr‘ibunol‘ The Tr'ibu al'hos been empowered under Section 35 (F) of fhe Ceniral Excise Aci 1944 (henceforth "The Acf") To pass oppropriafe order af’rer due considerofion o hardship of ihe appellant and ihe Tribunal afTer due considerafion of The dship, has passed fhe impugned order.’ In The Iighf of above fac s and circumsfances of the cases, we do no? find any illegaiity or infirmify n fhe said order. If does-no? involve any quesfion of law whaf 1-0 soy of bsfan’rial quesfion. The appeal filed by fhe appellanf againsf fhe inferim rder passed by fhe Tribunal is devoid of substance; fherefore, if is dismi sed im/imine. IA No.111 & 112 of 2007 d M.(C.)P.No.73/2007 s‘land disposed of. ’* *Ai e mzLé/ Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Sd/- 1 " Dhirendra Mishra Judge Judge (4mm)- XI-HC-22 h r ’