High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 09 MAD CK 0025

Bikram Singh Channa vs Registrar, CEGAT, The Commissioner of Central Excise and The Superintendent of Central Excise

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 September 2003 · Citation: (2004) 91 ECC 372

HON’BLE JUDGES
E. Padmanabhan, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 20665 of 1999 and W.M.P. No. 30312 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 191 words

E. Padmanabhan, J.—With the consent of either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2.

The request for pre-deposit has been declined by CEGAT. The order passed by the CIGAT in my considered view is a well considered order.

At the time of admission, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,00,000 with the second respondent. The said condition has been

complied with. As per the order passed by the CEGAT, another sum of Rs. 7,00,000 has to be remitted or deposited by the petitioner.

3.

Taking into consideration of the entire order, while holding that the direction to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 is too onerous, this Court

modifies the impugned order passed by the CEGAT and directs the said authority shall take up the appeal on file if the writ petitioner deposits

another sum of Rs. 2,00,000 within a period of six weeks from today. If the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000 is not remitted within six weeks, then the

consequence will be the earlier order passed by the CEGAT will stand.

4.

Consequently, W.M.P. No. 30312/1999 is also disposed of. No costs.