- (1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of the order dated 24-1-2012, Annexure P.3 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, "the Tribunal") whereby the petitioner has been required to deposit an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs as pre-deposit as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture of uncoated Kraft paper falling under Chapter Heading 48 04 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, "the 1985 Act"). The petitioner is registered with the Respondent-department. During 2005-08, it availed benefit of Small Scale Exemption in terms of Notification dated 1-3-2003. On 18-7-2007, officers of Anti-evasion branch of the respondent-department searched the factory premises of the petitioner and during search, two invoices alongwith their GRs were recovered from the Manager of the petitioner company showing that apart from manufacturing, the petitioner was engaged in trading of Kraft paper. The name of the trading firm was North West Paper Kraft Private Limited at Kamal. After examining the entire record, it was concluded that the petitioner had wrongly availed benefit of Small Scale Exemption. Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply to the notice. The respondents held that the petitioner had actually manufactured and cleared the goods and wrongly shown that the goods were traded by it. The respondents confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 1,01,74,318/- and imposed equal amount of penalty upon the petitioner vide order dated 29-4-2011, Annexure PI. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with stay application. Vide order dated 24-1-2012, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal noticed that there was allegation of clandestine removal and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs as pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal. Hence this petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the financial condition of the petitioner-company was poor and therefore, the Tribunal had failed to exercise jurisdiction and was not right in directing the petitioner-company to deposit an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the petition.;