2012 (7) TMI 886 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - petitioner had made submissions before the appellate authority and the CESTAT about the financial difficulties faced by it. Having regard to these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal s direction that the petitioner should deposit the entire amount is not justified. The said direction is modified and instead the petitioner shall be directed to deposit the entire duty amount in three equal monthly installments. The condition to deposit the interest on the duty amount is hereby set-aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to CESTAT order directing pre-deposit of duty and interest component.
2. Allegation of error of law by Tribunal and authorities.
3. Non-furnishing of investigation report.
4. Dispute regarding authenticity of ARE Forms.
5. Financial constraints of the petitioner.
6. Relief sought against the burden of payment.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the CESTAT order requiring pre-deposit of the entire duty and interest component. The counsel argued that the Tribunal and authorities erred in law by not providing the investigation report despite requests. It was emphasized that the petitioner, a merchant-exporter, faced adverse findings without access to crucial documents. The authenticity of ARE Forms was disputed as they were not signed by the petitioner or representative, and a request for forensic examination was denied. Additionally, the petitioner's financial constraints were highlighted, deeming the payment burden oppressive.

The respondent's counsel contended that the Tribunal's order was well-reasoned and warranted no interference. They maintained that the findings were concurrent, and relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be limited. Upon reviewing the case facts and orders, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's submissions on financial difficulties made before the appellate authority and CESTAT. Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal's directive for full payment unjustified. The Court modified the direction, allowing the petitioner to pay the entire duty amount in three equal monthly installments and setting aside the requirement for interest payment.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed on the terms that the petitioner would deposit the duty amount in installments, relieving the financial burden imposed by the original order.