1996 (6) TMI 92 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Tribunal's orders dated 1-6-1994 and 15-12-1995.
2. Interpretation and application of "undue hardship" under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Competence of the Tribunal to review its own orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Tribunal's orders dated 1-6-1994 and 15-12-1995:
The petitioner company challenged the Tribunal's orders dated 1-6-1994 and 15-12-1995. The first order directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4.5 lakhs as a pre-deposit against a disputed amount, while the second order refused to reduce the pre-deposit amount but extended the payment deadline. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate "undue hardship" in its decision-making process. However, the respondent contended that the first order could not be challenged at a late stage, and the second order was not reviewable by the Tribunal due to lack of power.

2. Interpretation and application of "undue hardship" under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
Section 35F mandates the deposit of duty or penalty pending an appeal, with a proviso allowing the Tribunal to dispense with the deposit if it causes "undue hardship." The Tribunal must objectively and judiciously assess all relevant materials to determine "undue hardship." The Supreme Court's judgments in Navin Chandra and Vijayaprakash clarified that non-compliance with the deposit requirement could lead to appeal rejection. The Tribunal's discretion must be exercised based on relevant materials, and a finding of "undue hardship" must precede any conditions imposed to safeguard revenue interests.

3. Competence of the Tribunal to review its own orders:
The Tribunal's second order, which extended the time for pre-deposit but refused to reduce the amount, was challenged by the petitioner. The respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its own orders. The court examined various precedents, including judgments from the Bombay, Calcutta, Allahabad, and Kerala High Courts, which emphasized the necessity of a proper "undue hardship" assessment. The court found that the Tribunal had considered the prima facie case and the company's financial status in its first order, and the second order merely extended the time for compliance without reviewing the first order.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion judiciously and considered all relevant factors, including the petitioner's financial status and the prima facie case. The Tribunal's orders were found to be honest, bona fide, and in accordance with the law. The court extended the deadline for the pre-deposit to 30-6-1996 and dismissed the writ petition with costs assessed at Rs. 2,500/-.