K.L.Sharma, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 22-3-1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi passed on the waiver application under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed in Appeal No. 396/94-NRB whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Five Lacs by way of penalty as imposed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.
(2.) I have heard Shri Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as Shri Shishendra Kumar, Standing Counsel for Central Government and also perused the material brought on record. Learned Standing counsel for the Union of India informs that no counter affidavit will be filed in this petition. As agreed by both the learned counsel, this petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.
(3.) Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued that by the impugned order dated 22-3-1995 the learned Tribunal has found strong prima facie case for waiver of demand and penalty levied in the case of M/s Kanpur Cigarettes (P) Ltd. and has directed the Company to deposit only Rs. Two crore out of Rs. 18 crores towards duty and Rs. 20 lacs towards the penalty out of Rs. 1 crore and 18 lacks; whereas the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs out of Rs. Fifty lacs levied as penalty by the Collector, Central Excise. But this court in writ petition No. 725 of 1995, vide, order dated 25-5-1995 set aside the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. Two crore twenty lacs and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the petitioner's appeal as expeditiously as possible and consequently this petitioner should also be exempted from depositing Rs. Five lacs as a pre-condition for the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is true that the learned Tribunal has in its detailed order dated 22-3-1995 found a strong prima facie case in favour of M/s. KCPL for partial waiver of the amount of duty and penalty but on the basis of that finding the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that on the ground of parity and the appeal involving the same question between M/s. KCPL and the petitioner, the condition of pre-deposit should have been dispensed with in the case of petitioner also.;