CWP No. 735 of 2007 with CWPs No.736 and 737 of 2007. 28.5.2008 Present: Mrs.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Central Government Counsel for the respondents. All the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order as common orders dated 18th July, 2006, 11th August, 2006 and 11th December, 2006 are under challenge in these petitions. The Joint Commissioner (Audit), in terms of order dated 16th February, 2006 affirmed the demand of Rs.15,58,948/- as central excise duty payable under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that the petitioner had diverted goods meant for export to home consumption. A penalty [under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act], of the like amount was also imposed by him. In relation to proceedings with respect to another consignment, the Joint Commissioner (Audit) vide order dated 31st January, 2006 also affirmed demand of Rs.17,30,430/- and penalty of the like amount and further vide order dated 14th February, 2006, the Joint Commissioner also adjudicated demand of Rs.10,08,977/- and penalty of the same amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed three appeals before the Commissioner, Central Excise, who in terms of order dated 18th July, 2006 directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the adjudicated amount before the appeals could be heard. For the reasons that the petitioner was facing undue financial hardship as such the deposit could not be made and consequently in terms of -2- order dated 11th August, 2006 the petitioner’s appeals (No.703 to 705/CE/CHD/06) were dismissed by a common order for non-deposit of the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal Custom, Excise and Service Tax, Principal Bench, New Delhi and in terms of common order dated 11th December, 2006 in Appeal No. 3565 to 3567 of 2006, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.7 lacs before the appeals could be heard by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the record and shown that the petitioner-company is actually facing undue hardships. Further out of three consignments in issue, with respect to two consignments the credit entry is stated to have been reversed by the petitioner and with regard to the third consignment there is an FIR which stands registered and is pending investigation. We find the same to be correct. Prima facie, we are of the view that there is force in the contention raised by the petitioner that ultimately nothing may be found to be due and payable by the petitioner. These facts and especially that the FIR has been registered and the matter is pending investigation ought to have been looked into by the authority below. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present cases, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met and the interest of Revenue could be adequately protected, if the petitioner immediately furnishes a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Commissioner Appeal in terms of the order -3- dated 11th December, 2006 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the matters be heard on merits. Considering that the matter has been pending before the Commissioner Appeals for quite sometime, it is also directed that the authority shall, after the bank guarantee is submitted, hear the parties and adjudicate the appeals expeditiously and possibly within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In view of the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of finally. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. May 28, 2008 (Sanjay Karol), J. (rc)