2014 (9) TMI 533 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - Interim orders cannot constitute a precedent but there ought to be some consistency even in making interim orders. If in same situation on same grounds, the interim order has been passed imposing certain conditions then in subsequent cases and for maintaining certainty, the Tribunal ought to have passed the identical order. There is no reason for deviating in the present case. There is no grievance made with regard to the financial capacity or otherwise of the assessee. It being a public utility concern, interest of justice would be served if we modify the order passed by the Tribunal and instead of condition of 50% of the deposit of the duty demanded, we direct that on deposit of sum of ₹ 15 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today, there shall be a stay in terms of the application made before the Tribunal. To enable the assessee to comply with the modified order and directions, it is directed that no coercive measures be initiated for a period of four weeks - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's deviation in pre-deposit condition for stay/waiver of deposit.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of deviation by the Tribunal in the pre-deposit condition for stay/waiver of deposit. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had consistently waived the condition of pre-deposit in similar cases by requiring only 1/6th of the amount to be deposited, but in the present case, the Tribunal directed a deposit of 50% of the duty and penalty demanded. The Court referred to the case law of Empire Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors., emphasizing the need for consistency in interim orders passed by the Tribunal in similar situations. The Court found merit in the appellant's complaint and modified the Tribunal's order, directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs within four weeks for a stay in terms of the application, with a directive to refrain from coercive measures for four weeks to enable compliance.

The High Court's decision was based on the principle of consistency in interim orders and ensuring justice for the appellant, a public utility concern. The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining uniformity in decisions on similar grounds to avoid arbitrary deviations. By modifying the pre-deposit condition set by the Tribunal and providing a specific amount and timeline for deposit, the Court aimed to balance the interests of both parties and uphold the principles of fairness and justice in the matter. The judgment focused on the need for predictability and certainty in legal proceedings, especially concerning financial obligations imposed on parties seeking relief, thereby ensuring a transparent and equitable process in the resolution of disputes.