2008 (7) TMI 684 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Recalling of Order dated 2-6-08 based on financial hardship and absence of opportunity for hearing.

Analysis:
Recalling of Order:
The appellants moved two Miscellaneous Applications seeking the recalling of the Order dated 2-6-08, which required them to make pre-deposits of drawback amounts and penalties. The appellants contended that they were not given an opportunity to present their case, had a prima facie good case, and faced financial difficulties preventing compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, with the appellants claiming innocence and financial hardship. However, the Revenue argued that the appellants had no basis for recalling the order, suggesting dilatory tactics to avoid paying legitimate dues. The Revenue emphasized that the appellants had already enjoyed the drawback amount and that their financial hardship plea was irrelevant. The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide evidence to support their claims and dismissed the recalling petitions, extending the deadline for compliance.

Financial Hardship and Absence of Opportunity:
The appellants argued that they were innocent and financially constrained, unable to make the required pre-deposits. However, the Revenue contended that the appellants' financial hardship plea should not be considered, as they had fraudulently enjoyed the drawback amount and failed to provide credible evidence supporting their innocence. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not substantiate their claims of financial hardship with evidence and dismissed the petitions for recalling the order. While the appellants were granted an extension for compliance, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting their pleas and the need to adhere to the original order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal denied the appellants' request to recall the Order dated 2-6-08 based on financial hardship and absence of opportunity for hearing. The decision was made after considering arguments from both sides, with the Tribunal finding the appellants' claims unsubstantiated and emphasizing the importance of complying with the pre-deposit requirements.