M/s GLORY CHEMICALS LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 183 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-2-2019
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1444 of 2019
Central Excise
MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ.
For The Petitioner : MR ANAND NAINAWATI (5970)
For The Respondents : MR NIRZAR S DESAI (2117)
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Rule. Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 8.1.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Division-X (Vapi-II) under rule 9 and rule 10 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 52,39,752/- with interest as applica
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
It is the case of the petitioner that they did not receive copy of the order passed by the Tribunal and it is only when they were delivered a letter dated 14.8.2018 directing them to pay up the dues of Central Excise duty, interest and penalty arising out of the orders-inoriginal, that the petitioner learnt about the passing of the order by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration on 9.10.2018, which is pending before the Tribunal.
3.1 In another matter, the Tribunal by an order dated 12.11.2014, observed that the first appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- as against the confirmed demand of approximately Rs. 13,80,000/-. The Tribunal expressed the view that the predeposit order made by the first appellate authority was excessive and accordingly, ordered the petitioner (appellant therein) to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to the amounts already deposited before the Commissioner (Appeals) on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
/- (rupees forty lakh) in cash and also submit a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (rupees one crore and ten lakh). The learned advocate further submitted that the respondents may be directed not to encash the bank-guarantee for a period of two months in case adverse orders are passed by the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also submitted that the respondents may also be directed to provide quantification of the interest amount calculated by them stating as to how they have arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-.
6. Mr. Nirzar Desai, however, insisted that the entire amount be deposited in cash in place of a bank guarantee. He further submitted that in case the court is not inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit the entire amount in cash, the petitioner may be directed to furnish two bank guarantees of Rs. 55,00,000/- each, in respect of (i) the proceeding pending before the Tribunal and (ii) the proceeding pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =