2015 (9) TMI 298 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Financial crisis - Held that - the materials on record, the statements of the parties, the affidavit placed on record together with copies of the ITR, balance sheets and the statement of affairs clearly indicate that the appellant is in acute financial crisis and would not be able to pay any amount. In these peculiar circumstances, the requirement of depositing any pre-deposit amount is hereby set aside - stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Requirement of depositing a differential amount as a precondition for hearing the appeal.
- Balance of convenience in granting an interim order.
- Financial hardship faced by the appellant.
- Adjudicating authority's examination of material.
- Setting aside the requirement of pre-deposit amount.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of a differential amount of Rs. 50 lacs required as a precondition for hearing an appeal, as per the order of CESTAT dated 17th November, 2014. The appellant, represented by learned counsel, argued that there is a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favors granting an interim order due to the risk of deprivation of the right to appeal. It was highlighted that the appellant is experiencing acute financial hardship with limited resources. On the other hand, the counsel for revenue opposed these contentions, emphasizing the need for security before granting an interim order.

Upon considering the materials on record, statements of the parties, affidavits, ITR, balance sheets, and the appellant's financial situation, the Court concluded that the appellant is indeed in a severe financial crisis and would be unable to make any payments. In light of these circumstances, the Court decided to set aside the requirement of depositing any pre-deposit amount and directed CESTAT to proceed with hearing the appeal on its merits. The judgment allowed the appeal on the terms mentioned, providing relief to the appellant from the financial burden imposed as a precondition for the appeal hearing.

The judgment showcases the Court's careful consideration of the appellant's financial position and the necessity of ensuring access to justice without undue financial barriers. By prioritizing the appellant's financial hardship and inability to make the required deposit, the Court upheld the principles of fairness and justice in the legal process. The decision highlights the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the practical realities faced by parties involved in legal proceedings, ultimately ensuring a just and equitable outcome in the case.