2014 (3) TMI 522 - HC - Central Excise

Review petition - Stay application - Stay on recover of duty and penalty - Held that - Perusal of the grounds of appeal reveals that no ground has been taken relating to financial hardship. The order of the Tribunal has not been challenged on the ground that the financial hardship has not been considered inasmuch as there was a financial hardship and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal was not justified. No substantial question of law has been framed relating to financial hardship. In the order dated 10.9.2013, it has been categorically observed that no argument has either been advanced or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of the financial hardship. This observation has not been disputed. The counsel, who argued the appeal, has not come forward to dispute the above assertion. Therefore, when the appellant has not pleaded and raised any argument about the financial hardship, there was no occasion to consider the same. The pleading in this regard in the review application cannot be entertained - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Review of Order based on Financial Hardship Consideration

Analysis:
The judgment involves a review application filed before the Allahabad High Court concerning the consideration of financial hardship in a previous order dated 10.9.2013. The applicant contended that the financial hardship aspect was not adequately examined by the court during the disposal of the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition and approach the High Court with a Review Petition to address the financial hardship issue. The respondent argued that the financial hardship had been considered by the court, citing previous orders and submissions. The court noted that the appellant failed to establish a case of undue hardship for waiving the deposit requirement of duty, interest, and penalty. The court emphasized the importance of establishing a strong prima facie case and financial hardship for considering undue hardship. It was observed that no arguments were presented regarding financial hardship during previous proceedings, and no grounds related to financial hardship were raised in the appeal before the Tribunal or the High Court.

The court reviewed the contents of the application under Section 35-F, which did not include any pleading related to financial hardship. The grounds of appeal also did not address financial hardship, and the order of the Tribunal was not challenged on the basis of financial hardship considerations. The court highlighted that the appellant did not dispute the observation that no arguments were made regarding financial hardship during previous proceedings. Consequently, the court concluded that since the appellant did not raise any arguments or pleadings regarding financial hardship, there was no basis for the court to consider this aspect. Therefore, the court found no merit in the review application and rejected it, stating that no grounds for reviewing the previous order based on financial hardship considerations were established.

In summary, the judgment delves into the importance of presenting arguments and establishing grounds related to financial hardship for the court to consider waiving deposit requirements. The court emphasized the need for clear pleadings and submissions on financial hardship issues to warrant a review of previous orders. The judgment highlights the significance of addressing all relevant aspects, including financial hardship, during legal proceedings to ensure a comprehensive and effective presentation of the case before the court.