2013 (12) TMI 1150 - HC - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that - Order of pre deposit modified - Amount of pre deposit reduced - Upon such predeposit, the deposit of the balance amount of penalty shall stand waived and the recovery of the same pending the appellant s appeal before the Tribunal is stayed - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1) Appellant's plea of financial hardship not considered in the impugned order.
2) Appellant unable to raise the amount directed for pre-deposit.
3) Modification of the impugned order to allow a reduced pre-deposit amount.
4) Stay on recovery of the balance penalty amount pending appeal.
5) Consequences of failure to deposit the amount as undertaken.

Analysis:
1) The appellant raised a grievance that their plea of financial hardship was not considered in the impugned order. The appellant informed the Tribunal about the inability to raise the pre-deposit amount of Rs.50 lacs as directed. The counsel for the appellant proposed a reduced pre-deposit amount of Rs.30 lacs, emphasizing the appellant's willingness to comply by a specified date. The appellant's readiness to pre-deposit the reduced amount was highlighted as without prejudice to their rights in the pending appeal.

2) After considering the submissions and the appellant's claim of financial constraints, the court accepted the appellant's undertaking to pre-deposit Rs.30 lacs by a specified date. The court, therefore, partially allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order to reflect the reduced pre-deposit amount. The appellant was directed to produce evidence of the deposit before the Tribunal for further proceedings on the appeal.

3) The judgment specified that upon the appellant's compliance with the reduced pre-deposit, the balance penalty amount of Rs.2.70 crores would be waived, and the recovery of the same pending the appeal would be stayed. However, it was explicitly stated that failure to deposit the amount as undertaken would result in the dismissal of the appeal before the Tribunal. The conditions for the stay on recovery were contingent upon the appellant fulfilling the pre-deposit commitment within the stipulated timeframe.

4) The court disposed of the appeal with the outlined directions, ensuring clarity on the consequences of non-compliance with the pre-deposit undertaking. The judgment provided a structured approach to address the appellant's financial hardship concerns while maintaining the procedural requirements and implications of failing to meet the specified obligations within the set timelines.