2015 (8) TMI 898 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Review of previous order 2015 (3) TMI 860 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Held that - The ground now pleaded by the petitioner is that some documents have been received to substantiate the plea of undue financial hardship. Even though the same was averred in the affidavit filed in support of the civil miscellaneous appeal, no evidence was produced to that effect when the appeal was taken up for hearing. All the issues now raised were highlighted by the review petitioner and that has been recorded in paragraph 11 of the judgment passed in the appeal. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record as pointed out by the review petitioner to seek review of the judgment dated 26.2.2015. The order of the Supreme Court now relied upon by the review petitioner is dated 12.6.2013 and the judgment sought to be reviewed is dated 26.2.2015. Therefore, it cannot be pleaded that there is a new or important matter which was discovered for filing review petition and the same could not be produced by the petitioner even after exercising due diligence. The documents available with the review petitioner were not produced despite making a oral plea - Revision declined.

Summary

Issues:
Review Application seeking to review a judgment on an interlocutory application for waiver of pre-deposit due to financial hardship.

Analysis:
The Review Application was filed to revisit a judgment made in C.M.A.No.188 of 2015 by the High Court. The petitioner sought waiver of pre-deposit due to financial constraints. Initially, the petitioner faced an order of adjudication for a substantial sum, followed by an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who ordered pre-deposit, leading to dismissal of the appeal when the order was not complied with. Subsequently, another demand was made, but it was set aside on appeal. The Tribunal then granted waiver of pre-deposit of a certain amount considering the petitioner's financial hardship. However, a subsequent petition for modification was also filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal extended the compliance period but did not modify the order further. The petitioner argued financial hardship due to long layoff and continued lockout, with winding-up proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.

The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce documents supporting the claim of financial hardship during the proceedings. The Court emphasized that mere oral statements without supporting evidence were insufficient to justify modifying the pre-deposit order. The petitioner later filed a Review Petition based on newly received documents to substantiate the financial hardship claim. However, the Court held that as these documents were not presented during the original proceedings, there was no valid ground for review. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court highlighted that a review cannot be sought based on new evidence that could have been produced earlier with due diligence. As no error or mistake was evident in the original judgment, the Review Application was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Review Application, emphasizing that the new documents presented by the petitioner were not sufficient grounds for review. The Court reiterated that evidence must be presented during the original proceedings and not withheld for later review attempts.