2012 (4) TMI 541 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Non complaince of pre deposit - Held that - Tribunal directed the Petitioner-Company to make a pre-deposit of 25% of the amount of duty confirmed within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks and report compliance on 19th April, 2012. It is not understood on what basis the Petitioner-Company was directed to pre-deposit 25% of the amount of duty, if the learned Tribunal could not arrive at any definite finding with regard to its financial condition, in the absence of I.T. Returns, Balance-sheet and other relevant records. Moreover, having recorded the submission that the factory had been closed since 2003 it is difficult to appreciate how the learned Tribunal could have directed pre-deposit of 25% and in absence of any specific finding that the submission of closure was not correct. The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of duty, Financial hardship claim of the Petitioner-Company, Lack of production of financial records by the Petitioner-Company, Setting aside the impugned order and quashing the same, Reconsideration of the stay prayer by the Tribunal, Disposal of the writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order by the Tribunal directing the Petitioner-Company to pre-deposit 25% of the duty confirmed within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the Petitioner Company failed to justify a total waiver of duty and penalty, noting the closure of their factory since 2003 and the absence of financial records. The Court criticized the Tribunal for not allowing the Petitioner Company to produce relevant financial records, emphasizing the importance of providing such an opportunity for justice.

The Tribunal's decision to require a 25% pre-deposit from the Petitioner-Company was questioned as it was unclear on what basis this amount was determined without concrete findings on the company's financial status. The Court noted the contradiction in the Tribunal's order, acknowledging the factory closure but still demanding a pre-deposit without verifying the accuracy of the closure claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and the appeal dismissal, instructing the Tribunal to reconsider the stay prayer in compliance with the law after allowing the Petitioner-Company to present necessary documents within four weeks.

The Court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the allegations not supported by evidence would not be considered admitted. Additionally, the Court directed the provision of a certified copy of the order to the parties upon request, subject to formalities. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the need for tribunals to consider all relevant evidence before making decisions affecting the parties involved.