- (1.) The challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders dated 27.8.2004, 1.7.2004, 29.1.2004 and the order dated 9,4.2003, copies Annexures P-1, P-1/A, P-2 and P-3 respectively.
(2.) The facts leading to the institution of instant writ petition are that the petitioner M/s Hari Om Castings were engaged in manufacturing of non-alloy steel ingots. According to the petitioner, from September 1997 to December 1998, it opted to discharge duty liability under Section 3-A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the Act) read with Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity the Rules of 1944). Accordingly, the competent authority fixed the annual capacity of the produce of the Unit as 3200 Metric Tons under the Induction Furnace of Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 and assessed the liability of the petitioner Unit as Rs. 1,66,666/- per month. Since, according to the petitioner, maximum monthly production of its furnace, which was 13 years old was 70 to 80 metric tones, the duty on which would come to Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per month. They paid a sum of Rs. 9.29 lacs according to its production from September 1997 to December 1998. Besides, the petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority. It is the case of the petitioner that its representation was not decided by the competent authority despite the directions dated 31.3.1998 issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 4598 of 1998. Rather, without considering the aforesaid facts that production capacity of its Unit, which is 13 years old is not more than 70 to 80 metric tones, they issued various show cause notices for deposit of excise duty @ Rs. 1,66,666/- per month, totaling to Rs. 17,51,656, as assessed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Commissionerate-I, Chandigarh. Further Addl. Commissioner, Ludhiana vide order dated 9.4.2003, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 17,51,656/- along with 18% interest. In appeal against the order dated 9.4.2003, the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ludhiana, though had waived the condition of the pre-deposit of Rs. 4 lacs, but dismissed the appeal on merits vide order dated 29.1.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Vide order dated 1.7.2004 the Tribunal refused to accept the plea of the petitioner of exemption from pre-deposit. However, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lacs within a period of six weeks therefrom and subject to deposit of that amount, recovery of balance amount was stayed, Since the petitioner could not comply with the said order dated 1.7.2004, its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non compliance with the provisions of Section 35-F of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act of 1944).
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully.;