9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of Notification 196/87-Cus, undue hardship, applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, financial difficulties, waiver of pre-deposit, discretion of quasi-judicial bodies, necessity of disclosing financial difficulties in applications, consideration of Section 28 of the Customs Act, limitations on waiver of pre-deposit, importance of complete application under Section 129E of the Customs Act, relevance of exemption notification, prima facie view of the matter, modification of earlier order, compliance deadline.
In this case, the main issues revolve around the interpretation of certain clauses of Notification 196/87-Cus, undue hardship, and the applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act. The appellants sought a modification of the order to waive the pre-deposit ordered by the stay order, citing financial difficulties and undue hardship. The Tribunal was tasked with considering the arguments presented, including the necessity of investigating financial difficulties under Section 129E of the Act and the discretion vested in quasi-judicial bodies like the Tribunal. Regarding the undue hardship claimed by the appellants, the Tribunal found that the application did not mention financial difficulties or undue hardship, focusing instead on the incorrectness of the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of including all necessary particulars and information related to financial difficulties in the application under Section 129E from the beginning, rather than presenting them in parts or instalments. In terms of the applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, the Tribunal clarified that while their order did not explicitly refer to it, the reasons for directing pre-deposit need not be discussed in detail as the order does not dispose of the entire matter finally. The Tribunal highlighted the need to consider limitations based on the latest Supreme Court judgment and the importance of leaving doubts in favor of the department in exemption notification cases. Ultimately, after considering the relevant materials and the principles outlined by Law Lords Halsbury and Coke, the Tribunal concluded that it was not possible to modify the earlier order. The applications were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to deposit the amounts within two weeks of receiving the order, with compliance set for a specific date. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of thorough and complete applications under Section 129E and the limitations on considering waiver of pre-deposit in instalments.
|
